From jeroen@unfix.org Sat Mar 1 00:02:32 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 01:02:32 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001501c2df85$dc022e10$210d640a@unfix.org> Michael Sturtz wrote: > I did check and although they seem to be currently waiving > the fees until 12/31/03 that is only temporary and not long > enough to spur increased investment. The lowest fee they > have is 2,500 per year for a standard /32 address space. > Also, they will not (from what I can tell) allocate address > space to non-ISPs i.e. end user organizations such as mine > so, we must wait. until we can get it some other way. > The company I work for has a class B IPv4 portable address block. > If I am understanding ARIN's rules they will not allocate IPv6 > address space to an end user organization. I personally > would like to get a portable (globally routable) address > block for my own personal use however there doesn't seem any > way to do this easily. I will admit that I am somewhat > ignorant of how this whole process works however it would > seem that it would spur IPv6 adoption if end users > could get portable address space on their own without being > dependant on an ISP. Please correct me if I am wrong. You and me and all the other 6 billion people walking around on this earth and using the internet are _end users_. And an end user is not an ISP. The barrier for not giving everybody a "portable address space of your own" is simply because otherwise the routing tables would explode. Not even speaking about the fact that 6 billion * /32 doesn't fit in IPv6 address space. There was something about Routing Hierarchy which is a good thing coming along with IPv6. Also if your organisation is big enough ofcourse you can pay up that small amount of 2500 US which is just a laugh compared to what one pays for a real router, staff, cabling, housing, you name it. Also maintaining a backbone ISP really does take As an end user you will need to push your upstream, the people who you pay, along with a load of other people to get them to do IPv6. If they don't and you still want it, go to another ISP. Yes, that sounds harsh but it is that way. I have been kicking ISP's for some time now and I don't have native IPv6 (!yet!) but it will come, one day. Fortunatly I do have access to a rather good tunnelbroker which I have been (ab)using for the last 3 years and I was able to change my ISP in between which is also a good thing. And yes, I like having a stable IP prefix for my own. But like you and anybody else I am just a mere mortal, not a big ISP or organisation who have tons of clientele and have the time to make and keep it working. Maybe if you really want a 'portable block' you should signup with one of the TLA owners and let them route, or tunnel, "your" block directly to you. If you are big enough to play with the big people they must allow you, otherwise too bad... Btw, I must note that 'address space' is not a property. It always is the 'property' of the RIRs, who in turn can be asked to give it back to IANA. Not that something will happen quickly though ;) Greets, Jeroen From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Sat Mar 1 00:07:54 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:07:54 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54C52@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> > Michael Sturtz wrote: > The company I work for has a class B IPv4 portable address block. > If I am understanding ARIN's rules they will not allocate IPv6 > address space to an end user organization. Correct, nor will RIPE, APNIC not LATNIC. > I personally would like to get a portable (globally routable) > address block for my own personal use This does not look it is going to happen any time soon. > however it would seem that it would spur IPv6 adoption if end > users could get portable address space on their own without > being dependant on an ISP. It might happen later on as a loosening of multihoming assignment policies, but I would not count on it before separation between identifier and locator is achieved. I regret to report that multihoming solutions that could be used on singlehomed sites for the sole purpose of address portability are likely to limit the initial usage to multihomers. Michel. From jeroen@unfix.org Sat Mar 1 00:21:05 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 01:21:05 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <019a01c2df7f$fefd9ef0$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop> Message-ID: <001d01c2df88$73841ee0$210d640a@unfix.org> Daniel Austin wrote: > Hi, > > We're in a similar position here. > Our company is not large enough to request a /32 from RIPE > (we cant allocate 200 customers ipv6 in the next 12 months, > nor can i lie to RIPE to let them believe it!) And 200 customers is a really small figure. If you have 200 dailup/dsl/hosting users you are there. If you don't have 200 of such users you simply are not big enough. There are some caveats though, but most RIR's won't make much fuss when you can explain your plans and your customerbase well enough. Good example is NREN's who might have eg 50 universities as clients. But actually those 50 universities comprise of thousands of students, buildings, classrooms, dailup facilities etc. It's just how you formulate 'client' in this matter and the rules are not that strict at the moment. You might try to contact your RIR and ask them before thinking that it doesn't work out in the first place. > We're not a RIPE LIR, so i cant even request it to be thrown out. > But we're fully multihomed on PI ipv4 space.... > > It seems there's no similar position for us in ipv6 land. > I have to rely on using static-routed IPv6 IP's from another > provider which means i *CANT* offer a production service on ipv6.... > but of course, this all goes back to the multihoming thread... Who says that you can't setup private BGP peerings for 'your' /40 ? As long as it doesn't pop up in the global routing table that's perfectly fine. Greets, Jeroen PS: before somebody starts thinking 'he is prolly big enough' well.. I don't work for any ISP whatsoever and I am really not big enough on my own. So, just like everybody else I gotta have to rely on me paying a big ISP for some address space, but for that money they also make sure that I am multihomed, that they get out of bed at 05:00 to fix stuff etc ;) And actually that is fine with me. From pekkas@netcore.fi Sat Mar 1 08:12:37 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 10:12:37 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54C50@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Michel Py wrote: > It is time for folks to understand that IPv6 can not be a commodity > until an IPv6 multihoming solution is deployed. It is time for folks to stop thinking the need for a magic IPv6 multihoming solution as pretense why IPv6 hasn't gotten off yet. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From Daniel Austin" Message-ID: <003801c2dfd0$29c8eae0$c9dafea9@DanLaptop> Hi, > Daniel Austin wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We're in a similar position here. > > Our company is not large enough to request a /32 from RIPE > > (we cant allocate 200 customers ipv6 in the next 12 months, > > nor can i lie to RIPE to let them believe it!) > > And 200 customers is a really small figure. > If you have 200 dailup/dsl/hosting users you are there. > If you don't have 200 of such users you simply are not big enough. Every company has to start somewhere... we're not a dialup/dsl provider and never hope to be one. We purely do colocation. we buy and sell raw bandwidth and servers. When looking from a colo point of view... it takes a while to get 200 customers - right now, all i can do is offer then free 6bone or "unsupported production" space for their colo boxes. > There are some caveats though, but most RIR's won't make much fuss > when you can explain your plans and your customerbase well enough. > > Good example is NREN's who might have eg 50 universities as clients. > But actually those 50 universities comprise of thousands of students, > buildings, classrooms, dailup facilities etc. It's just how you > formulate > 'client' in this matter and the rules are not that strict at the moment. > You might try to contact your RIR and ask them before thinking that it > doesn't work out in the first place. We would have to become a LIR first - yet another overhead that we dont have as an IPv4 provider. > > We're not a RIPE LIR, so i cant even request it to be thrown out. > > But we're fully multihomed on PI ipv4 space.... > > > > It seems there's no similar position for us in ipv6 land. > > I have to rely on using static-routed IPv6 IP's from another > > provider which means i *CANT* offer a production service on ipv6.... > > but of course, this all goes back to the multihoming thread... > > Who says that you can't setup private BGP peerings for 'your' /40 ? > As long as it doesn't pop up in the global routing table that's > perfectly fine. If i still only have 1 *true* inbound path for the production space, i can't offer the Service Level Agreement that i currently hold on IPv4. Sure i can multihome outbound traffic across providers, but it's all about SLA. I can't compete with larger companies who can multihome because i can't give the SLA required. I'll contact RIPE on behalf of my company, but i'm not hopeful :-( With Thanks, Daniel Austin, Managing Director, Kewlio.net Limited. > Greets, > Jeroen > > PS: before somebody starts thinking 'he is prolly big enough' well.. > I don't work for any ISP whatsoever and I am really not big enough on my > own. > So, just like everybody else I gotta have to rely on me paying a big ISP > for > some address space, but for that money they also make sure that I am > multihomed, that they get out of bed at 05:00 to fix stuff etc ;) > And actually that is fine with me. > > From owens@nysernet.org Sat Mar 1 13:58:19 2003 From: owens@nysernet.org (owens@nysernet.org) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 08:58:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Michel Py wrote: > > It is time for folks to understand that IPv6 can not be a commodity > > until an IPv6 multihoming solution is deployed. > > It is time for folks to stop thinking the need for a magic IPv6 > multihoming solution as pretense why IPv6 hasn't gotten off yet. There is no magic multihoming solution needed - just *ANY* multihoming solution. Bill. From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Sat Mar 1 14:55:48 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 14:55:48 +0000 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <001d01c2df88$73841ee0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <019a01c2df7f$fefd9ef0$6ea0fea9@DanLaptop> <001d01c2df88$73841ee0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20030301145548.GF5776@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Hi, Although our university is single-homed for academic traffic, we also have a single homed commercial link for non-academic traffic. We have been fortunate that for 3-4 years since we ran this link we have had pretty much 100% uptime from the supplier. Of course multihoming is like insurance policies, you don't need them until you have a problem. We would be quite happy to pay 2,500 p.a. LIR fees if that meant we could gain an independent block (/48, or /32 :) for IPv6 use (and IPv4). For us, 2,500 is a small fraction of even what we feel is a small ISP activity. Anyone who can't afford that must have quite a small operation(?) so I do kind of agree with people who suggest limiting PI growth by attaching a fee. But if that happens we need a different solution for the small guys who can't afford that money (but these won't be bigger than SME, single geography networks?). And what was the count for IPv4 PI networks determined recently? It wasn't that large... I'm not trying to be provocative here(!), just understand relationships, operational sizes, etc that lead to the requirements. Tim On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 01:21:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Daniel Austin wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We're in a similar position here. > > Our company is not large enough to request a /32 from RIPE > > (we cant allocate 200 customers ipv6 in the next 12 months, > > nor can i lie to RIPE to let them believe it!) > > And 200 customers is a really small figure. > If you have 200 dailup/dsl/hosting users you are there. > If you don't have 200 of such users you simply are not big enough. > > There are some caveats though, but most RIR's won't make much fuss > when you can explain your plans and your customerbase well enough. > > Good example is NREN's who might have eg 50 universities as clients. > But actually those 50 universities comprise of thousands of students, > buildings, classrooms, dailup facilities etc. It's just how you > formulate > 'client' in this matter and the rules are not that strict at the moment. > You might try to contact your RIR and ask them before thinking that it > doesn't work out in the first place. > > > We're not a RIPE LIR, so i cant even request it to be thrown out. > > But we're fully multihomed on PI ipv4 space.... > > > > It seems there's no similar position for us in ipv6 land. > > I have to rely on using static-routed IPv6 IP's from another > > provider which means i *CANT* offer a production service on ipv6.... > > but of course, this all goes back to the multihoming thread... > > Who says that you can't setup private BGP peerings for 'your' /40 ? > As long as it doesn't pop up in the global routing table that's > perfectly fine. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > PS: before somebody starts thinking 'he is prolly big enough' well.. > I don't work for any ISP whatsoever and I am really not big enough on my > own. > So, just like everybody else I gotta have to rely on me paying a big ISP > for > some address space, but for that money they also make sure that I am > multihomed, that they get out of bed at 05:00 to fix stuff etc ;) > And actually that is fine with me. > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Sat Mar 1 15:11:05 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 15:11:05 +0000 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by NECTEC-TH - review closes 10 March 2003 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030301151105.GL5776@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 08:58:19AM -0500, owens@nysernet.org wrote: > > There is no magic multihoming solution needed - just *ANY* multihoming > solution. So how many /32's would be allocated if we followed Pekka's idea and/or the LIR-limiting path? This would at least shift the focus of the immediate solution space? Tim From bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net Sat Mar 1 21:19:38 2003 From: bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 22:19:38 +0100 Subject: [6bone] How to route for both native IPv6 and IPv4 internet? In-Reply-To: <20030228092928.57852.qmail@web14811.mail.yahoo.com> (=?iso-8859-1?q?xuemei=20bp?= 's message of Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:29:28 GMT) Message-ID: <200303012119.h21LJc6b016918@ludwigV.sources.org> On Friday 28 February 2003, at 9 h 29, =?iso-8859-1?q?xuemei=20bp?= wrote: > and route -A inet6 add 2001::/16 via 192.88.99.1 dev eth0 ... > I am not happy to use this command, because the PC can only access prefix > 2001 native IPv6). [I fail to see the connection between "native IPv6" and "2001 addresses".] Therefore, why don't you use 2000::/3 (instead of 2001::/16) or, even better (warning: this requires a Linux kernel >= 2.4.20 *or* the USAGI patch), a default route 0::/0? From jguthrie@brokersys.com Sun Mar 2 21:34:00 2003 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 15:34:00 -0600 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <001501c2df85$dc022e10$210d640a@unfix.org>; from jeroen@unfix.org on Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 18:02:32 -0600 References: <001501c2df85$dc022e10$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20030302213400.GA17347@chromite.brokersys.com> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:02:32 Jeroen Massar wrote: > As an end user you will need to push your upstream, the people who > you pay, along with a load of other people to get them to do IPv6. > If they don't and you still want it, go to another ISP. And if there is no available ISP? As I said before, saying 'give me IPv6 transit or I'll disconnect from the Internet' is not a credible threat. It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are multiple dialup and broadband providers in the USA. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Sto pro veritate From jeroen@unfix.org Sun Mar 2 22:56:26 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 23:56:26 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <20030302213400.GA17347@chromite.brokersys.com> Message-ID: <001301c2e10e$f7371850$210d640a@unfix.org> Jonathan Guthrie [mailto:jguthrie@brokersys.com] wrote: > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:02:32 Jeroen Massar wrote: > > As an end user you will need to push your upstream, the people who > > you pay, along with a load of other people to get them to do IPv6. > > If they don't and you still want it, go to another ISP. > > And if there is no available ISP? As I said before, saying > 'give me IPv6 transit or I'll disconnect from the Internet' > is not a credible threat. Use an alternative like a tunnelbroker ;) > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there > are multiple dialup and broadband providers in the USA. The current planning for dismanteling the 6bone is 2006, that is 3 years from now. You prolly don't have any insight what we have accomplished in Europe in the past 3 years. Now it's time for the American folks to wake up and do their work. Checking http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ it says that the US have 73 TLA's out of the total 456 around the world. That count is including 6bone allocations. 73/456 = 16% of the total allocated IPv6 space on this planet. Apparently *some* ISP's are busy with it, now you'll just have to convince your upstream. They really need market *demand*, so you'll got to raise your voice. In the mean time you can 'fallback' to a tunneled connection. Of which enough are available. Greets, Jeroen From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Mon Mar 3 00:24:54 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 16:24:54 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54C5C@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> > Jeroen Massar wrote: > As an end user you will need to push your upstream, the > people who you pay, along with a load of other people to > get them to do IPv6. If they don't and you still want it, > go to another ISP. I don't see any single feature that IPv6 could bring me today that would make me change the good deal I have with my IPv4 ISP. The 1% of IPv6 I do does not justify changing the 99% of IPv4. Frankly, if it was not for the research work I do on IPv6 I not could care less about IPv6 as an Internet user; there is nothing that I need or like that's not available on v4. ISPs are not dumb they know it too. > Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there > are multiple dialup and broadband providers in the USA. And not only in the USA. Someone knows about an IPv6 provider in Lyon or Marseille, France? (the two biggest cities after Paris). However, it is not premature to schedule the end of the 6bone; the 6bone needs to sunset. What we must not do is to schedule a premature end. Michel. From dan@reeder.name Mon Mar 3 00:31:45 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:31:45 +1000 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 References: <001501c2df85$dc022e10$210d640a@unfix.org> <20030302213400.GA17347@chromite.brokersys.com> Message-ID: <000701c2e11c$50ee17b0$0200a8c0@elf> > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are multiple > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. and, dare i say it, in each major region of the world too? i'm yet to see a non-tunnelled solution for the home user in .au dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Guthrie" To: "Jeroen Massar" Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:34 AM Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:02:32 Jeroen Massar wrote: > > As an end user you will need to push your upstream, the people who > > you pay, along with a load of other people to get them to do IPv6. > > If they don't and you still want it, go to another ISP. > > And if there is no available ISP? As I said before, saying 'give me IPv6 > transit or I'll disconnect from the Internet' is not a credible threat. > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are multiple > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. > -- > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) > Sto pro veritate > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From dan@reeder.name Mon Mar 3 04:23:07 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:23:07 +1000 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 References: <001501c2df85$dc022e10$210d640a@unfix.org> <20030302213400.GA17347@chromite.brokersys.com> <000701c2e11c$50ee17b0$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: <002c01c2e13c$9b1f91e0$0200a8c0@elf> let me expand on my point below - according to sixxs, there's four TLAs in australia: Connect, Telstra, NTT, and AARNET from what I can determine, Connect has been idle since it's inception in 1999; Telstra has a boss who thinks packet switching is an immature technology, not to mention the fact that their left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in an organisation that big; NTT seems to be for big business ($$) only; and Aarnet for educational institutions only. does anyone who lives in a country similarly constrained have any ideas about how to get things progressing? dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Reeder" To: "Jonathan Guthrie" ; "Jeroen Massar" Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are multiple > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. > > and, dare i say it, in each major region of the world too? > i'm yet to see a non-tunnelled solution for the home user in .au > > dan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan Guthrie" > To: "Jeroen Massar" > Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:34 AM > Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 > > > > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:02:32 Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > As an end user you will need to push your upstream, the people who > > > you pay, along with a load of other people to get them to do IPv6. > > > If they don't and you still want it, go to another ISP. > > > > And if there is no available ISP? As I said before, saying 'give me IPv6 > > transit or I'll disconnect from the Internet' is not a credible threat. > > > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are multiple > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. > > -- > > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) > > Sto pro veritate > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From bob@thefinks.com Mon Mar 3 06:51:15 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 22:51:15 -0800 Subject: [6bone] pTLA request by CARTEL - review closes 17 March 2003 Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030302224324.01e62740@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, CARTEL has requested a pTLA allocation and I find their request fully compliant with RFC2772. The open review period for this will close 17 March 2003. Please send your comments to me or the list. Thanks, Bob === Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:43:52 +0100 From: Laurent Mele To: fink@es.net Subject: pTLA request. Message-ID: <20030226094352.GT11553@cartel-securite.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi, 1. The pTLA Applicant must have a minimum of three (3) months qualifying experience as a 6Bone end-site or pNLA transit. During the entire qualifying period the Applicant must be operationally providing the following: We are on the 6 bone since February 2002 with a first /56 sub delegation From Oleane (AS3215) / France Telecom a. Fully maintained, up to date, 6Bone Registry entries for their ipv6-site inet6num, mntner, and person objects, including each tunnel that the Applicant has. Our objects are viewable here : http://whois.6bone.net/cgi-bin/whois?CARTEL b. Fully maintained, and reliable, BGP4+ peering and connectivity between the Applicant's boundary router and the appropriate connection point into the 6Bone. This router must be IPv6 pingable. This criteria is judged by members of the 6Bone Operations Group at the time of the Applicant's pTLA request. Our router is a cisco 3620 operating a 12.2.8T5 IOS Pingable at : 3FFE:4013:F:25::2 (for the moment as we plan to of course change it's primary IP) c. Fully maintained DNS forward (AAAA) and reverse (ip6.int) entries for the Applicant's router(s) and at least one host system. Our DNS are : ns0.cartel-securite.net (3ffe:4013:2101:110::100 / 194.29.206.15) ns1.cartel-securite.net (3ffe:4013:2101:116::100 / 194.29.206.67) d. A fully maintained, and reliable, IPv6-accessible system providing, at a mimimum, one or more web pages, describing the Applicant's IPv6 services. This server must be IPv6 pingable. For the moment web site is www.ipv6.cartel-securite.net but will change soon to let our customers change their tunnels and gets /48 or /64 delegations... Work in progress... 2. The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide "production-quality" 6Bone backbone service. Applicants must provide a statement and information in support of this claim. a. A support staff of two persons minimum, three preferable, with person attributes registered for each in the ipv6-site object for the pTLA applicant. Our staff is as mentionned in 6bone whois db and it's consist in Three Members. b. A common mailbox for support contact purposes that all support staff have acess to, pointed to with a notify attribute in the ipv6-site object for the pTLA Applicant. The address is ipv6@cartel-securite.fr which is an alias for mele, lasserteux, lecocq @cartel-securite.fr 3. The pTLA Applicant MUST have a potential "user community" that would be served by its becoming a pTLA, e.g., the Applicant is a major provider of Internet service in a region, country, or focus of interest. Applicant must provide a statement and information in support this claim. We want a pTLA allocation to serve our customers which wants to test ipv6 and for our web / mail / ..... / servers. We do not want for the moment to sell ipv6 and it's really for testing purpose. We will probably offer tunnels and /64 delegations to anybody who wants it. We are provider for enterprise or entity which needs secure environment like banks or ministers. We are exclusively working with French society for hosting / providing. Our providing consist in Fibers peer to peer link between us and our customers. After that, nothing really more than firewalling -> backbone -> Internet. They often have DMZ for "private" services hosting (web, smtp, dns) We actually host more than 100 corporate sites for the most with https. We also provide smtp/dns... BTW our customers are a few number (< 200) but they have greats needs in ip (V4 only for the moment) for stuff like VPN or HTTPS. We want to promote ipv6 to them as a test platform (no fees, no charges). 4. The pTLA Applicant MUST commit to abide by the current 6Bone operational rules and policies as they exist at time of its application, and agree to abide by future 6Bone backbone operational rules and policies as they evolve by consensus of the 6Bone backbone and user community. When an Applicant seeks to receive a pTLA allocation, it will apply to the 6Bone Operations Group (see section 8 below) by providing to the Group information in support of its claims that it meets the criteria above. -- Laurent Mele CARTEL SECURITE GROUPE CGBI Ingenieur Systemes et Reseaux Tel.: +33 1.44.06.97.88 Fax : +33 1.44.06.97.99 http://www.cartel-securite.fr From jeroen@unfix.org Mon Mar 3 15:35:54 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:35:54 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <002c01c2e13c$9b1f91e0$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: <002401c2e19a$95453870$210d640a@unfix.org> Dan Reeder wrote: > let me expand on my point below - > according to sixxs, there's four TLAs in australia: Connect, > Telstra, NTT, > and AARNET You skipped Trumpet, though they have 'only' a 6bone pTLA. Trumpet has been quite active in the IPv6 world and even added IPv6 support to most of their programs, at least according to their website. See: http://www.trumpet.com.au/ipv6.htm 2001:388::/32 AARNET-IPV6-20020117 2001:210::/35 CONNECT-AU-19990916 2001:360::/32 V6TELSTRAINTERNET-AU-20011211 3ffe:8000::/28 TRUMPET/AU 2001:c78::/32 NTTIP-AU-20020910 > from what I can determine, Connect has been idle since it's > inception in 1999; Telstra has a boss who thinks packet > switching is an immature technology, not to mention the > fact that their left hand doesn't know what the right hand > is doing in an organisation that big; NTT seems to be for big > business ($$) only; and Aarnet for educational institutions only. Of these NTT does do IPv6 globally, that is they are connected natively at least at AMS-IX, most parts of the US and Japan. > does anyone who lives in a country similarly constrained have > any ideas about how to get things progressing? What about harrassing^Wcontacting their sales department and inquiring about the status? If I where living in that country I would be on their necks ;) You could also check and contact: http://www.cs-ipv6.lancs.ac.uk/ipv6/6Bone/Whois/bycountry.html#AU Which contains a list of 9 other sites apparently connected to the 6bone. Greets, Jeroen PS: If you are able to find a australian ISP with a TLA who wants to do tunnelbrokering but doesn't have the means to do so, you can always point them to http://www.sixxs.net/pops/requirements/ From m.gargani@edisontel.it Mon Mar 3 15:49:42 2003 From: m.gargani@edisontel.it (Max Gargani) Date: 03 Mar 2003 16:49:42 +0100 Subject: [6bone] route object IPv6 Message-ID: <1046706582.2183.50.camel@work.masgar.net> Hi all, Anyone knows if RIPE Db supports the object in subject? Thanks, Max From mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca Mon Mar 3 18:34:14 2003 From: mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:34:14 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 Mar 2003 14:55:48 GMT." <20030301145548.GF5776@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <200303031834.h23IYFs5025435@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- So, there are two ways to get /48s that you can use. 1) from places like freenet6 or xs6. 2) via 6to4. The problem with freenet6-type things is that they depend upon tunnels to places that aren't necessarily that well connected. xs6 is much better, but not perfect. But, you can't advertise 6to4 addresses to the DFZ. You could do so via private peering arrangements, but the peer could as easily configure a 6to4 interface, and you wouldn't need to IPv6 peer at all. The problem with 6to4 is ironic - traffic to any other 6to4 peer is very efficient - following the IPv4 routing table. The problem is that 6bone is SO POORLY CONNECTED from the 6to4 user's point of view. A lot of purists want to run IPv6 natively, and don't seem to care about connecting to actual end users... result, no traffic on the native backbone. So, we need more sites people on the 6bone that have local 6to4 encapsulators, and we need more 6to4 relays out there so that the 6to4 end users can get things done efficiently. The question is how, given that many ISPs are not interested in IPv6 at all yet. I was thinking of putting together a machine for a local IX that would advertise the 6to4 anycast address. The issue is what do you do with the resulting IPv6 packets? You have to get IPv6 transit from somewhere. In some cases, it may well be available for low cost. Not at our IX. My idea was to have such a box form a series of static tunnels to various friendly IPv6 sites. Here is the key - when sending the packet back out, one should look at the MAC address that it arrived from. Since this is the ISP that sent the packet, send a new packet out via that MAC address that is the encapsulated packet to the 6bone. The effect here is that route used for the packets from ISP A is back out ISP A. Since the original packet is presumeably from a customer of ISP A, ISP A shouldn't have a problem with paying to transit the resulting packet. (And if they do, then one doesn't accept packets from them) I can see this as being even more important for Teredo. What do you think? ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBPmOgIoqHRg3pndX9AQGiawP8CSclFfs8tiGIT3EEEUzPO6qj8t5uu6S1 x+W5lC7KA68u/Rby2WEPJK+r31jS/5kPznNXguXVIPd08RxkFxT+oWccYamE7/zr 0uotp60dJBEEesc6aCBzz/Hb/nbNn+Ph2CBL9ceoSmcfKgP8q5UGleKEyOdz6bKI JgYpUpArdVM= =mlJC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jeroen@unfix.org Mon Mar 3 20:41:02 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:41:02 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <200303031834.h23IYFs5025435@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> Message-ID: <000b01c2e1c5$3674daf0$210d640a@unfix.org> Michael Richardson wrote: > So, there are two ways to get /48s that you can use. > > 1) from places like freenet6 or xs6. > 2) via 6to4. > > The problem with freenet6-type things is that they depend upon tunnels > to places that aren't necessarily that well connected. xs6 is > much better, but not perfect. > > But, you can't advertise 6to4 addresses to the DFZ. You could do so > via private peering arrangements, but the peer could as > easily configure a 6to4 interface, and you wouldn't need to IPv6 peer at all. > > The problem with 6to4 is ironic - traffic to any other 6to4 > peer is very efficient - following the IPv4 routing table. The problem is > that 6bone is SO POORLY CONNECTED from the 6to4 user's point of view. One first should differentiate between "6bone IPv6" and "Production IPv6". Though there are sites using 6bone space that qualify for "Production". A better way to describe it is when a site is MIPP compliant or not, see: http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt Users won't want to only access the 6bone they want to access the IPv6 enabled internet, of which 6bone is only a small, but significant part. > A lot of purists want to run IPv6 natively, and don't seem to > care about connecting to actual end users... result, no traffic on the > native backbone. The problem with connecting end-users is the infra in between which mostly consists of hardware which simply doesn't support IPv6. In my case the 'problem' is a Redback SMS 1800, I got native IPv4 over ADSL, but those SMS's don't understand IPv6 at all. But using a 6in4 tunnel it only adds ~2ms to my latency as it crosses the IX, so that isn't that bad. Fortunatly there are a number of transition methods to overcome those problems. > So, we need more sites people on the 6bone that have local 6to4 > encapsulators, and we need more 6to4 relays out there so that > the 6to4 end users can get things done efficiently. The question is how, > given that many ISPs are not interested in IPv6 at all yet. > > I was thinking of putting together a machine for a local IX that would > advertise the 6to4 anycast address. The issue is what do you > do with the resulting IPv6 packets? You have to get IPv6 transit from somewhere. > In some cases, it may well be available for low cost. Not at our IX. Effectively this is what we are doing with SixXS, a LIR can come to us*, and we'll fix them up with a POP from which they can provision their users to get them connected to IPv6. This currently only is done using 6in4 tunnels but the system is capable of doing other methods (ppp over ssh, to name one ;) The autoconfig tool, which also allows dailup/non-static, non-24/7 users to benefit from this, is currently in internal beta. Currently IPv6 "transit" isn't a big problem as most sites will happily do it for free, ofcourse in certain limits. So one doesn't have to worry about that. Just make sure you are at a IX where some other ISP's do IPv6 and your off. For 'better' connectivity one can ofcourse make a few tunnels to remote sites. Though one should stay inside the specs given in the MIPP draft. Note that this talk and related have been held last month on the v6ops mailing list mainly because it is 'bigger' than the 6bone. Greets, Jeroen * = http://www.sixxs.net/pops/requirements/ (and no, it doesn't cost anything except for some traffic and some hardware for the POP) From mrp@mrp.net Tue Mar 4 01:23:20 2003 From: mrp@mrp.net (Mark Prior) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:53:20 +1030 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <002c01c2e13c$9b1f91e0$0200a8c0@elf> References: <001501c2df85$dc022e10$210d640a@unfix.org> <20030302213400.GA17347@chromite.brokersys.com> <000701c2e11c$50ee17b0$0200a8c0@elf> <002c01c2e13c$9b1f91e0$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: At 2:23 PM +1000 3/3/03, Dan Reeder wrote: >let me expand on my point below - >according to sixxs, there's four TLAs in australia: Connect, Telstra, NTT, >and AARNET > >from what I can determine, Connect has been idle since it's inception in >1999; Telstra has a boss who thinks packet switching is an immature >technology, not to mention the fact that their left hand doesn't know what >the right hand is doing in an organisation that big; NTT seems to be for big >business ($$) only; and Aarnet for educational institutions only. > Connect had it running (since I turned it on and was using it :-) but I guess someone/thing has broken it (possibly just the tunnel out of the country). It wasn't a production service so it would have needed someone to complain for a problem to be investigated and fixed. Mark. (now at AARNet :-) From ferryas@cc.saga-u.ac.jp Tue Mar 4 02:12:48 2003 From: ferryas@cc.saga-u.ac.jp (ferryas) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 11:12:48 +0900 Subject: [6bone] Help For CISCO NAT PT Message-ID: <3E640BA0.9060607@cc.saga-u.ac.jp> --------------060803000504020809070604 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, everyone. Today my lab buy a new cisco 2611 XM with IOS 12.2(13T). We want to try migration strategy using NAT PT. This is my lab. configuration | ---------- |----------- | 133.49.51.0/24 3ffe:aaaa:bbbb:800::/64 NATed prefix = 3ffe:b:aaaa::/96 IPv4 DNS=133.49.51.1 IPv4 Gateway = 133.49.51.1 IPv6 DNS 3ffe:aaaa:bbbb:800::53/64 I have try several command according to CISCO Documentation, but not succeed yet. Somebody can help me??? (I am new in CISCO NAT PT, so it looks like more difficult comparing with Free BSD :( ) Thank you for your attention, Ferry Astika S, CNC Saga University --------------060803000504020809070604-- From trent@irc-desk.net Tue Mar 4 09:38:45 2003 From: trent@irc-desk.net (Trent Lloyd) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:38:45 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <002c01c2e13c$9b1f91e0$0200a8c0@elf> References: <001501c2df85$dc022e10$210d640a@unfix.org> <20030302213400.GA17347@chromite.brokersys.com> <000701c2e11c$50ee17b0$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304173607.01facc70@mail.bur.st> We have a local internet exchange in Perth called "WAIX" and i am hoping to get some ipv6 transport happening over that The founder/guy who runs it has expressed interest but naturally he is a busy man and since not that many people are into it i guess its not high on his to-do list My local uni has connected through aarnet, and you can get a 'tunnel' from 6bone@progsoc.org.au (email) who come of [i forget] As you said, the 4 TLA owners there are unlikely to do much - a shame. Is it possible for a 'group' to get a TLA? maybe an informal associated of people from random ISPs and just people got together and got a TLA which they could do stuff with? I'd be interested. At 02:23 PM 3/03/2003 +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: >let me expand on my point below - >according to sixxs, there's four TLAs in australia: Connect, Telstra, NTT, >and AARNET > >from what I can determine, Connect has been idle since it's inception in >1999; Telstra has a boss who thinks packet switching is an immature >technology, not to mention the fact that their left hand doesn't know what >the right hand is doing in an organisation that big; NTT seems to be for big >business ($$) only; and Aarnet for educational institutions only. > >does anyone who lives in a country similarly constrained have any ideas >about how to get things progressing? > >dan >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Dan Reeder" >To: "Jonathan Guthrie" ; "Jeroen Massar" > >Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> >Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:31 AM >Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 > > > > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are >multiple > > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. > > > > and, dare i say it, in each major region of the world too? > > i'm yet to see a non-tunnelled solution for the home user in .au > > > > dan > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jonathan Guthrie" > > To: "Jeroen Massar" > > Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:34 AM > > Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:02:32 Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > As an end user you will need to push your upstream, the people who > > > > you pay, along with a load of other people to get them to do IPv6. > > > > If they don't and you still want it, go to another ISP. > > > > > > And if there is no available ISP? As I said before, saying 'give me >IPv6 > > > transit or I'll disconnect from the Internet' is not a credible threat. > > > > > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are >multiple > > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. > > > -- > > > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) > > > Sto pro veritate > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 6bone mailing list > > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From trent@irc-desk.net Tue Mar 4 09:41:14 2003 From: trent@irc-desk.net (Trent Lloyd) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:41:14 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <000b01c2e1c5$3674daf0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <200303031834.h23IYFs5025435@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304174031.02081d68@mail.bur.st> What software exists for 6to4 relay-routing I think 6to4 is great personally [use it with Windows XP at home] It be interested in having a shot at setting one up/. At 09:41 PM 3/03/2003 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: >Michael Richardson wrote: > > > So, there are two ways to get /48s that you can use. > > > > 1) from places like freenet6 or xs6. > > 2) via 6to4. > > > > The problem with freenet6-type things is that they depend upon tunnels > > to places that aren't necessarily that well connected. xs6 is > > much better, but not perfect. > > > > But, you can't advertise 6to4 addresses to the DFZ. You could do so > > via private peering arrangements, but the peer could as > > easily configure a 6to4 interface, and you wouldn't need to IPv6 peer >at all. > > > > The problem with 6to4 is ironic - traffic to any other 6to4 > > peer is very efficient - following the IPv4 routing table. The problem >is > > that 6bone is SO POORLY CONNECTED from the 6to4 user's point of view. > > >One first should differentiate between "6bone IPv6" and "Production >IPv6". >Though there are sites using 6bone space that qualify for "Production". >A better way to describe it is when a site is MIPP compliant or not, >see: >http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt > >Users won't want to only access the 6bone they want to access the >IPv6 enabled internet, of which 6bone is only a small, but significant >part. > > > A lot of purists want to run IPv6 natively, and don't seem to > > care about connecting to actual end users... result, no traffic on the > > > native backbone. > >The problem with connecting end-users is the infra in between which >mostly >consists of hardware which simply doesn't support IPv6. >In my case the 'problem' is a Redback SMS 1800, I got native IPv4 over >ADSL, >but those SMS's don't understand IPv6 at all. But using a 6in4 tunnel it >only adds ~2ms to my latency as it crosses the IX, so that isn't that >bad. > >Fortunatly there are a number of transition methods to overcome those >problems. > > > So, we need more sites people on the 6bone that have local 6to4 > > encapsulators, and we need more 6to4 relays out there so that > > the 6to4 end users can get things done efficiently. The question is >how, > > given that many ISPs are not interested in IPv6 at all yet. > > > > I was thinking of putting together a machine for a local IX that would > > advertise the 6to4 anycast address. The issue is what do you > > do with the resulting IPv6 packets? You have to get IPv6 transit from >somewhere. > > In some cases, it may well be available for low cost. Not at our IX. > >Effectively this is what we are doing with SixXS, a LIR can come to us*, >and we'll fix them up with a POP from which they can provision their >users >to get them connected to IPv6. This currently only is done using 6in4 >tunnels >but the system is capable of doing other methods (ppp over ssh, to name >one ;) >The autoconfig tool, which also allows dailup/non-static, non-24/7 users >to benefit from this, is currently in internal beta. > >Currently IPv6 "transit" isn't a big problem as most sites will happily >do it >for free, ofcourse in certain limits. So one doesn't have to worry about >that. >Just make sure you are at a IX where some other ISP's do IPv6 and your >off. >For 'better' connectivity one can ofcourse make a few tunnels to remote >sites. >Though one should stay inside the specs given in the MIPP draft. > >Note that this talk and related have been held last month on the v6ops >mailing >list mainly because it is 'bigger' than the 6bone. > >Greets, > Jeroen > >* = http://www.sixxs.net/pops/requirements/ >(and no, it doesn't cost anything except for some traffic and some >hardware for the POP) > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From trent@irc-desk.net Tue Mar 4 10:06:18 2003 From: trent@irc-desk.net (Trent Lloyd) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:06:18 +0800 Subject: [6bone] IPv6 Mini-Conference Update & Articles on setting up IPv6 Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304180427.00b579d8@mail.iprimus.com.au> Hey guys, as part of the new online australian linux mag (www.linmagau.org) theres a small section on the IPv6 mini-conference http://www.linmagau.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=41 and an article on using abdul basit's tunnel broker to get yourself connected here http://www.linmagau.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=42 Have fun ;) Also i hope to have the papers online at http://conf.sixlabs.org/papers/ soonish (the old site now at http://conf.sixlabs.org - ill point the old http://ipv6.ztsoftware.net/ there soon) Trent From bmanning@ISI.EDU Tue Mar 4 13:50:49 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:50:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304173607.01facc70@mail.bur.st> from Trent Lloyd at "Mar 4, 3 05:38:45 pm" Message-ID: <200303041350.h24DonE12602@boreas.isi.edu> Once Gavin gets the paperwork processed, WAIX will have a v6 prefix delegated from ep.net for WAIX participants to use for native peering. % We have a local internet exchange in Perth called "WAIX" and i am hoping to % get some ipv6 transport happening over that % The founder/guy who runs it has expressed interest but naturally he is a % busy man and since not that many people are into it i guess its not high on % his to-do list % % My local uni has connected through aarnet, and you can get a 'tunnel' from % 6bone@progsoc.org.au (email) who come of [i forget] % % As you said, the 4 TLA owners there are unlikely to do much - a shame. % % Is it possible for a 'group' to get a TLA? % maybe an informal associated of people from random ISPs and just people got % together and got a TLA which they could do stuff with? % I'd be interested. % % At 02:23 PM 3/03/2003 +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: % >let me expand on my point below - % >according to sixxs, there's four TLAs in australia: Connect, Telstra, NTT, % >and AARNET % > % >from what I can determine, Connect has been idle since it's inception in % >1999; Telstra has a boss who thinks packet switching is an immature % >technology, not to mention the fact that their left hand doesn't know what % >the right hand is doing in an organisation that big; NTT seems to be for big % >business ($$) only; and Aarnet for educational institutions only. % > % >does anyone who lives in a country similarly constrained have any ideas % >about how to get things progressing? % > % >dan % >----- Original Message ----- % >From: "Dan Reeder" % >To: "Jonathan Guthrie" ; "Jeroen Massar" % > % >Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> % >Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:31 AM % >Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 % > % > % > > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are % >multiple % > > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. % > > % > > and, dare i say it, in each major region of the world too? % > > i'm yet to see a non-tunnelled solution for the home user in .au % > > % > > dan % > > % > > ----- Original Message ----- % > > From: "Jonathan Guthrie" % > > To: "Jeroen Massar" % > > Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> % > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:34 AM % > > Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 % > > % > > % > > > % > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:02:32 Jeroen Massar wrote: % > > > > As an end user you will need to push your upstream, the people who % > > > > you pay, along with a load of other people to get them to do IPv6. % > > > > If they don't and you still want it, go to another ISP. % > > > % > > > And if there is no available ISP? As I said before, saying 'give me % >IPv6 % > > > transit or I'll disconnect from the Internet' is not a credible threat. % > > > % > > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are % >multiple % > > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. % > > > -- % > > > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) % > > > Sto pro veritate % > > > _______________________________________________ % > > > 6bone mailing list % > > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu % > > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone % > > % > > _______________________________________________ % > > 6bone mailing list % > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu % > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone % > % >_______________________________________________ % >6bone mailing list % >6bone@mailman.isi.edu % >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone % % _______________________________________________ % 6bone mailing list % 6bone@mailman.isi.edu % http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone % -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From trent@irc-desk.net Tue Mar 4 14:48:55 2003 From: trent@irc-desk.net (Trent Lloyd) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 22:48:55 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <200303041350.h24DonE12602@boreas.isi.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304173607.01facc70@mail.bur.st> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304224833.031a2bd8@mail.bur.st> At 05:50 AM 4/03/2003 -0800, Bill Manning wrote: > Once Gavin gets the paperwork processed, WAIX will have a v6 > prefix delegated from ep.net for WAIX participants to use for > native peering. really? cool i didnt know he got this far. i suspected he hadn't done much at all actually >% We have a local internet exchange in Perth called "WAIX" and i am hoping to >% get some ipv6 transport happening over that >% The founder/guy who runs it has expressed interest but naturally he is a >% busy man and since not that many people are into it i guess its not high on >% his to-do list >% >% My local uni has connected through aarnet, and you can get a 'tunnel' from >% 6bone@progsoc.org.au (email) who come of [i forget] >% >% As you said, the 4 TLA owners there are unlikely to do much - a shame. >% >% Is it possible for a 'group' to get a TLA? >% maybe an informal associated of people from random ISPs and just people got >% together and got a TLA which they could do stuff with? >% I'd be interested. >% >% At 02:23 PM 3/03/2003 +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: >% >let me expand on my point below - >% >according to sixxs, there's four TLAs in australia: Connect, Telstra, NTT, >% >and AARNET >% > >% >from what I can determine, Connect has been idle since it's inception in >% >1999; Telstra has a boss who thinks packet switching is an immature >% >technology, not to mention the fact that their left hand doesn't know what >% >the right hand is doing in an organisation that big; NTT seems to be >for big >% >business ($$) only; and Aarnet for educational institutions only. >% > >% >does anyone who lives in a country similarly constrained have any ideas >% >about how to get things progressing? >% > >% >dan >% >----- Original Message ----- >% >From: "Dan Reeder" >% >To: "Jonathan Guthrie" ; "Jeroen Massar" >% > >% >Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> >% >Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:31 AM >% >Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 >% > >% > >% > > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are >% >multiple >% > > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. >% > > >% > > and, dare i say it, in each major region of the world too? >% > > i'm yet to see a non-tunnelled solution for the home user in .au >% > > >% > > dan >% > > >% > > ----- Original Message ----- >% > > From: "Jonathan Guthrie" >% > > To: "Jeroen Massar" >% > > Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> >% > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:34 AM >% > > Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 >% > > >% > > >% > > > >% > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:02:32 Jeroen Massar wrote: >% > > > > As an end user you will need to push your upstream, the people who >% > > > > you pay, along with a load of other people to get them to do IPv6. >% > > > > If they don't and you still want it, go to another ISP. >% > > > >% > > > And if there is no available ISP? As I said before, saying 'give me >% >IPv6 >% > > > transit or I'll disconnect from the Internet' is not a credible >threat. >% > > > >% > > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are >% >multiple >% > > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. >% > > > -- >% > > > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) >% > > > Sto pro veritate >% > > > _______________________________________________ >% > > > 6bone mailing list >% > > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >% > > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone >% > > >% > > _______________________________________________ >% > > 6bone mailing list >% > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >% > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone >% > >% >_______________________________________________ >% >6bone mailing list >% >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >% >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone >% >% _______________________________________________ >% 6bone mailing list >% 6bone@mailman.isi.edu >% http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone >% > > >-- >--bill > >Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and >certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From trent@irc-desk.net Tue Mar 4 14:53:57 2003 From: trent@irc-desk.net (Trent Lloyd) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 22:53:57 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <009201c2e25d$35e744e0$3ce26d8c@sinica.edu.tw> References: <200303031834.h23IYFs5025435@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> <5.1.0.14.0.20030304174031.02081d68@mail.bur.st> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304225324.015a4dd0@mail.bur.st> At 10:48 PM 4/03/2003 +0800, Ethern Lin wrote: >Dear Trent, > >You can try FreeBSD. It can provide what you need. >Try stf interface. Are you referring to connecting via 6to4, or running an 6to4 relay router so everyone else can relay through me? >BR. > >Ethern > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Trent Lloyd" >To: "Jeroen Massar" ; "'Michael Richardson'" >; <6bone@ISI.EDU> >Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:41 PM >Subject: RE: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 > > > > What software exists for 6to4 relay-routing > > > > I think 6to4 is great personally [use it with Windows XP at home] > > > > It be interested in having a shot at setting one up/. > > > > At 09:41 PM 3/03/2003 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > >Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > > > > So, there are two ways to get /48s that you can use. > > > > > > > > 1) from places like freenet6 or xs6. > > > > 2) via 6to4. > > > > > > > > The problem with freenet6-type things is that they depend upon tunnels > > > > to places that aren't necessarily that well connected. xs6 is > > > > much better, but not perfect. > > > > > > > > But, you can't advertise 6to4 addresses to the DFZ. You could do so > > > > via private peering arrangements, but the peer could as > > > > easily configure a 6to4 interface, and you wouldn't need to IPv6 peer > > >at all. > > > > > > > > The problem with 6to4 is ironic - traffic to any other 6to4 > > > > peer is very efficient - following the IPv4 routing table. The problem > > >is > > > > that 6bone is SO POORLY CONNECTED from the 6to4 user's point of view. > > > > > > > > >One first should differentiate between "6bone IPv6" and "Production > > >IPv6". > > >Though there are sites using 6bone space that qualify for "Production". > > >A better way to describe it is when a site is MIPP compliant or not, > > >see: > > >http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt > > > > > >Users won't want to only access the 6bone they want to access the > > >IPv6 enabled internet, of which 6bone is only a small, but significant > > >part. > > > > > > > A lot of purists want to run IPv6 natively, and don't seem to > > > > care about connecting to actual end users... result, no traffic on the > > > > > > > native backbone. > > > > > >The problem with connecting end-users is the infra in between which > > >mostly > > >consists of hardware which simply doesn't support IPv6. > > >In my case the 'problem' is a Redback SMS 1800, I got native IPv4 over > > >ADSL, > > >but those SMS's don't understand IPv6 at all. But using a 6in4 tunnel it > > >only adds ~2ms to my latency as it crosses the IX, so that isn't that > > >bad. > > > > > >Fortunatly there are a number of transition methods to overcome those > > >problems. > > > > > > > So, we need more sites people on the 6bone that have local 6to4 > > > > encapsulators, and we need more 6to4 relays out there so that > > > > the 6to4 end users can get things done efficiently. The question is > > >how, > > > > given that many ISPs are not interested in IPv6 at all yet. > > > > > > > > I was thinking of putting together a machine for a local IX that would > > > > advertise the 6to4 anycast address. The issue is what do you > > > > do with the resulting IPv6 packets? You have to get IPv6 transit from > > >somewhere. > > > > In some cases, it may well be available for low cost. Not at our IX. > > > > > >Effectively this is what we are doing with SixXS, a LIR can come to us*, > > >and we'll fix them up with a POP from which they can provision their > > >users > > >to get them connected to IPv6. This currently only is done using 6in4 > > >tunnels > > >but the system is capable of doing other methods (ppp over ssh, to name > > >one ;) > > >The autoconfig tool, which also allows dailup/non-static, non-24/7 users > > >to benefit from this, is currently in internal beta. > > > > > >Currently IPv6 "transit" isn't a big problem as most sites will happily > > >do it > > >for free, ofcourse in certain limits. So one doesn't have to worry about > > >that. > > >Just make sure you are at a IX where some other ISP's do IPv6 and your > > >off. > > >For 'better' connectivity one can ofcourse make a few tunnels to remote > > >sites. > > >Though one should stay inside the specs given in the MIPP draft. > > > > > >Note that this talk and related have been held last month on the v6ops > > >mailing > > >list mainly because it is 'bigger' than the 6bone. > > > > > >Greets, > > > Jeroen > > > > > >* = http://www.sixxs.net/pops/requirements/ > > >(and no, it doesn't cost anything except for some traffic and some > > >hardware for the POP) > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >6bone mailing list > > >6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > From mclin@sinica.edu.tw Tue Mar 4 15:29:14 2003 From: mclin@sinica.edu.tw (Ethern Lin) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:29:14 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 References: <200303031834.h23IYFs5025435@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> <5.1.0.14.0.20030304174031.02081d68@mail.bur.st> <5.1.0.14.0.20030304225324.015a4dd0@mail.bur.st> Message-ID: <00cb01c2e262$d5616f00$3ce26d8c@sinica.edu.tw> I think the keyword "6to4" is what I get from your mail, so I think the FreeBSD maybe fit your need. And you can also filter the incoming 6to4 relay from the site out of your IP block. BR. Ethern ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trent Lloyd" To: <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 > At 10:48 PM 4/03/2003 +0800, Ethern Lin wrote: > >Dear Trent, > > > >You can try FreeBSD. It can provide what you need. > >Try stf interface. > > Are you referring to connecting via 6to4, or running an 6to4 relay router > so everyone else can relay through me? > > > >BR. > > > >Ethern > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Trent Lloyd" > >To: "Jeroen Massar" ; "'Michael Richardson'" > >; <6bone@ISI.EDU> > >Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:41 PM > >Subject: RE: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 > > > > > > > What software exists for 6to4 relay-routing > > > > > > I think 6to4 is great personally [use it with Windows XP at home] > > > > > > It be interested in having a shot at setting one up/. > > > > > > At 09:41 PM 3/03/2003 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > >Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, there are two ways to get /48s that you can use. > > > > > > > > > > 1) from places like freenet6 or xs6. > > > > > 2) via 6to4. > > > > > > > > > > The problem with freenet6-type things is that they depend upon tunnels > > > > > to places that aren't necessarily that well connected. xs6 is > > > > > much better, but not perfect. > > > > > > > > > > But, you can't advertise 6to4 addresses to the DFZ. You could do so > > > > > via private peering arrangements, but the peer could as > > > > > easily configure a 6to4 interface, and you wouldn't need to IPv6 peer > > > >at all. > > > > > > > > > > The problem with 6to4 is ironic - traffic to any other 6to4 > > > > > peer is very efficient - following the IPv4 routing table. The problem > > > >is > > > > > that 6bone is SO POORLY CONNECTED from the 6to4 user's point of view. > > > > > > > > > > > >One first should differentiate between "6bone IPv6" and "Production > > > >IPv6". > > > >Though there are sites using 6bone space that qualify for "Production". > > > >A better way to describe it is when a site is MIPP compliant or not, > > > >see: > > > >http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt > > > > > > > >Users won't want to only access the 6bone they want to access the > > > >IPv6 enabled internet, of which 6bone is only a small, but significant > > > >part. > > > > > > > > > A lot of purists want to run IPv6 natively, and don't seem to > > > > > care about connecting to actual end users... result, no traffic on the > > > > > > > > > native backbone. > > > > > > > >The problem with connecting end-users is the infra in between which > > > >mostly > > > >consists of hardware which simply doesn't support IPv6. > > > >In my case the 'problem' is a Redback SMS 1800, I got native IPv4 over > > > >ADSL, > > > >but those SMS's don't understand IPv6 at all. But using a 6in4 tunnel it > > > >only adds ~2ms to my latency as it crosses the IX, so that isn't that > > > >bad. > > > > > > > >Fortunatly there are a number of transition methods to overcome those > > > >problems. > > > > > > > > > So, we need more sites people on the 6bone that have local 6to4 > > > > > encapsulators, and we need more 6to4 relays out there so that > > > > > the 6to4 end users can get things done efficiently. The question is > > > >how, > > > > > given that many ISPs are not interested in IPv6 at all yet. > > > > > > > > > > I was thinking of putting together a machine for a local IX that would > > > > > advertise the 6to4 anycast address. The issue is what do you > > > > > do with the resulting IPv6 packets? You have to get IPv6 transit from > > > >somewhere. > > > > > In some cases, it may well be available for low cost. Not at our IX. > > > > > > > >Effectively this is what we are doing with SixXS, a LIR can come to us*, > > > >and we'll fix them up with a POP from which they can provision their > > > >users > > > >to get them connected to IPv6. This currently only is done using 6in4 > > > >tunnels > > > >but the system is capable of doing other methods (ppp over ssh, to name > > > >one ;) > > > >The autoconfig tool, which also allows dailup/non-static, non-24/7 users > > > >to benefit from this, is currently in internal beta. > > > > > > > >Currently IPv6 "transit" isn't a big problem as most sites will happily > > > >do it > > > >for free, ofcourse in certain limits. So one doesn't have to worry about > > > >that. > > > >Just make sure you are at a IX where some other ISP's do IPv6 and your > > > >off. > > > >For 'better' connectivity one can ofcourse make a few tunnels to remote > > > >sites. > > > >Though one should stay inside the specs given in the MIPP draft. > > > > > > > >Note that this talk and related have been held last month on the v6ops > > > >mailing > > > >list mainly because it is 'bigger' than the 6bone. > > > > > > > >Greets, > > > > Jeroen > > > > > > > >* = http://www.sixxs.net/pops/requirements/ > > > >(and no, it doesn't cost anything except for some traffic and some > > > >hardware for the POP) > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >6bone mailing list > > > >6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > > >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 6bone mailing list > > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From basit@basit.cc Tue Mar 4 16:07:43 2003 From: basit@basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 16:07:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304174031.02081d68@mail.bur.st> References: <200303031834.h23IYFs5025435@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> <5.1.0.14.0.20030304174031.02081d68@mail.bur.st> Message-ID: on a related note ........ I tried to use 6over4 with XP, and XP just crash whenever i try to create it via ipv6 ifcr v6v4 v4src v4dst This command simply leads to reboot of system this is XP Professional with service pack 1 take care - basit On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Trent Lloyd wrote: > What software exists for 6to4 relay-routing > > I think 6to4 is great personally [use it with Windows XP at home] > > It be interested in having a shot at setting one up/. > > At 09:41 PM 3/03/2003 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >Michael Richardson wrote: > > > > > So, there are two ways to get /48s that you can use. > > > > > > 1) from places like freenet6 or xs6. > > > 2) via 6to4. > > > > > > The problem with freenet6-type things is that they depend upon tunnels > > > to places that aren't necessarily that well connected. xs6 is > > > much better, but not perfect. > > > > > > But, you can't advertise 6to4 addresses to the DFZ. You could do so > > > via private peering arrangements, but the peer could as > > > easily configure a 6to4 interface, and you wouldn't need to IPv6 peer > >at all. > > > > > > The problem with 6to4 is ironic - traffic to any other 6to4 > > > peer is very efficient - following the IPv4 routing table. The problem > >is > > > that 6bone is SO POORLY CONNECTED from the 6to4 user's point of view. > > > > > >One first should differentiate between "6bone IPv6" and "Production > >IPv6". > >Though there are sites using 6bone space that qualify for "Production". > >A better way to describe it is when a site is MIPP compliant or not, > >see: > >http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt > > > >Users won't want to only access the 6bone they want to access the > >IPv6 enabled internet, of which 6bone is only a small, but significant > >part. > > > > > A lot of purists want to run IPv6 natively, and don't seem to > > > care about connecting to actual end users... result, no traffic on the > > > > > native backbone. > > > >The problem with connecting end-users is the infra in between which > >mostly > >consists of hardware which simply doesn't support IPv6. > >In my case the 'problem' is a Redback SMS 1800, I got native IPv4 over > >ADSL, > >but those SMS's don't understand IPv6 at all. But using a 6in4 tunnel it > >only adds ~2ms to my latency as it crosses the IX, so that isn't that > >bad. > > > >Fortunatly there are a number of transition methods to overcome those > >problems. > > > > > So, we need more sites people on the 6bone that have local 6to4 > > > encapsulators, and we need more 6to4 relays out there so that > > > the 6to4 end users can get things done efficiently. The question is > >how, > > > given that many ISPs are not interested in IPv6 at all yet. > > > > > > I was thinking of putting together a machine for a local IX that would > > > advertise the 6to4 anycast address. The issue is what do you > > > do with the resulting IPv6 packets? You have to get IPv6 transit from > >somewhere. > > > In some cases, it may well be available for low cost. Not at our IX. > > > >Effectively this is what we are doing with SixXS, a LIR can come to us*, > >and we'll fix them up with a POP from which they can provision their > >users > >to get them connected to IPv6. This currently only is done using 6in4 > >tunnels > >but the system is capable of doing other methods (ppp over ssh, to name > >one ;) > >The autoconfig tool, which also allows dailup/non-static, non-24/7 users > >to benefit from this, is currently in internal beta. > > > >Currently IPv6 "transit" isn't a big problem as most sites will happily > >do it > >for free, ofcourse in certain limits. So one doesn't have to worry about > >that. > >Just make sure you are at a IX where some other ISP's do IPv6 and your > >off. > >For 'better' connectivity one can ofcourse make a few tunnels to remote > >sites. > >Though one should stay inside the specs given in the MIPP draft. > > > >Note that this talk and related have been held last month on the v6ops > >mailing > >list mainly because it is 'bigger' than the 6bone. > > > >Greets, > > Jeroen > > > >* = http://www.sixxs.net/pops/requirements/ > >(and no, it doesn't cost anything except for some traffic and some > >hardware for the POP) > > > >_______________________________________________ > >6bone mailing list > >6bone@mailman.isi.edu > >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From jeroen@unfix.org Tue Mar 4 16:17:49 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:17:49 +0100 Subject: 6in4 with XP (Was: RE: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005801c2e269$9a704e50$534510ac@cyan> Abdul Basit [mailto:basit@basit.cc] wrote: > on a related note ........ > > I tried to use 6over4 with XP, and XP just crash > whenever i try to create it via > ipv6 ifcr v6v4 v4src v4dst > > This command simply leads to reboot of system > this is XP Professional with service pack 1 You might want to read http://www.sixxs.net/forum/?msg=setup-22825 Note that it does work for me ;) Greets, Jeroen From mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca Tue Mar 4 23:23:44 2003 From: mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:23:44 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:41:14 +0800." <5.1.0.14.0.20030304174031.02081d68@mail.bur.st> Message-ID: <200303042323.h24NNijm019884@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> "Trent" == Trent Lloyd writes: Trent> What software exists for 6to4 relay-routing Basically, any *BSD system, or Linux system. You just need to setup the stf0 interface with the IPv4 that you expect people to reach you on. The hard part is doing something with the resulting IPv6 packets - you have to have some kind of reasonable IPv6 connectivity. Ideally, native, but tunnels would do as well. ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBPmU1foqHRg3pndX9AQHNfwP6AksQ9gHQBC3/xMlivh5Yz50k+D+s8vaV tF2niieDsOTDsxR7hdDPtOAc2VA7sbShC1auMNPBotI84nXPmfP+/QxLSGlbpHJT Ggf2oKN1Ro5kLSZ2ljYlYbf47scbkD5UuaqOlm0z4y7A5ybxR+wx0Zw6YP97+O/v tOhPXpXwPlw= =gsjB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au Wed Mar 5 02:05:55 2003 From: wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au (Anand Kumria) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:05:55 +1100 Subject: 6to4 relay routing was: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304225324.015a4dd0@mail.bur.st> References: <200303031834.h23IYFs5025435@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> <5.1.0.14.0.20030304174031.02081d68@mail.bur.st> <5.1.0.14.0.20030304225324.015a4dd0@mail.bur.st> Message-ID: <20030305020555.GJ12992@geryon.progsoc.uts.edu.au> On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:53:57PM +0800, Trent Lloyd wrote: > At 10:48 PM 4/03/2003 +0800, Ethern Lin wrote: > >Dear Trent, > > > >You can try FreeBSD. It can provide what you need. > >Try stf interface. > > Are you referring to connecting via 6to4, or running an 6to4 relay router > so everyone else can relay through me? > You don't need any specific software to perform 6to4 relay routing. If you have a machine setup for forwarding it'll do it. If you want to also perform relay routing for 192.88.99.1 you can probably setup a dummy interface -- or add that address to your existing ethernet card. Anand -- `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada From wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au Wed Mar 5 02:10:55 2003 From: wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au (Anand Kumria) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:10:55 +1100 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304173607.01facc70@mail.bur.st> References: <001501c2df85$dc022e10$210d640a@unfix.org> <20030302213400.GA17347@chromite.brokersys.com> <000701c2e11c$50ee17b0$0200a8c0@elf> <5.1.0.14.0.20030304173607.01facc70@mail.bur.st> Message-ID: <20030305021054.GL12992@geryon.progsoc.uts.edu.au> [ Trent, please trim your emails ] On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 05:38:45PM +0800, Trent Lloyd wrote: > We have a local internet exchange in Perth called "WAIX" and i am hoping to > get some ipv6 transport happening over that > The founder/guy who runs it has expressed interest but naturally he is a > busy man and since not that many people are into it i guess its not high on > his to-do list I spoke to him while I was in Perth - the problem is that the exchange members who might be interested run their Cisco gear without purchasing support (for cost reasons) so they aren't entitled to run the release train that supports IPv6. > My local uni has connected through aarnet, and you can get a 'tunnel' from > 6bone@progsoc.org.au (email) who come of [i forget] 6bone@progsoc.org. Our upstream is Trumpet. > As you said, the 4 TLA owners there are unlikely to do much - a shame. > > Is it possible for a 'group' to get a TLA? > maybe an informal associated of people from random ISPs and just people got > together and got a TLA which they could do stuff with? > I'd be interested. Why exactly would a 'group' need a TLA? Regards, Anand -- `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think. When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Wed Mar 5 12:40:02 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:40:02 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 References: <001501c2df85$dc022e10$210d640a@unfix.org> <20030302213400.GA17347@chromite.brokersys.com> <000701c2e11c$50ee17b0$0200a8c0@elf> <5.1.0.14.0.20030304173607.01facc70@mail.bur.st> Message-ID: Trent Lloyd said amongst other stuff: Is it possible for a 'group' to get a TLA? | maybe an informal associated of people from random ISPs and just people got | together and got a TLA which they could do stuff with? | I'd be interested. Yep, me too, and I'm in Perth also - well Quinns Rocks.:0) Gav... --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Wed Mar 5 12:46:42 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:46:42 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 References: <001501c2df85$dc022e10$210d640a@unfix.org> <20030302213400.GA17347@chromite.brokersys.com> <000701c2e11c$50ee17b0$0200a8c0@elf> <5.1.0.14.0.20030304173607.01facc70@mail.bur.st> Message-ID: I didn't know that, I'm using the Tilab TB Client. I'll take a look , thanks. Gav... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trent Lloyd" To: <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 | We have a local internet exchange in Perth called "WAIX" and i am hoping to | get some ipv6 transport happening over that | The founder/guy who runs it has expressed interest but naturally he is a | busy man and since not that many people are into it i guess its not high on | his to-do list | | My local uni has connected through aarnet, and you can get a 'tunnel' from | 6bone@progsoc.org.au (email) who come of [i forget] | | As you said, the 4 TLA owners there are unlikely to do much - a shame. | | Is it possible for a 'group' to get a TLA? | maybe an informal associated of people from random ISPs and just people got | together and got a TLA which they could do stuff with? | I'd be interested. | | At 02:23 PM 3/03/2003 +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: | >let me expand on my point below - | >according to sixxs, there's four TLAs in australia: Connect, Telstra, NTT, | >and AARNET | > | >from what I can determine, Connect has been idle since it's inception in | >1999; Telstra has a boss who thinks packet switching is an immature | >technology, not to mention the fact that their left hand doesn't know what | >the right hand is doing in an organisation that big; NTT seems to be for big | >business ($$) only; and Aarnet for educational institutions only. | > | >does anyone who lives in a country similarly constrained have any ideas | >about how to get things progressing? | > | >dan | >----- Original Message ----- | >From: "Dan Reeder" | >To: "Jonathan Guthrie" ; "Jeroen Massar" | > | >Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> | >Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:31 AM | >Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 | > | > | > > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are | >multiple | > > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. | > > | > > and, dare i say it, in each major region of the world too? | > > i'm yet to see a non-tunnelled solution for the home user in .au | > > | > > dan | > > | > > ----- Original Message ----- | > > From: "Jonathan Guthrie" | > > To: "Jeroen Massar" | > > Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> | > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:34 AM | > > Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 | > > | > > | > > > | > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:02:32 Jeroen Massar wrote: | > > > > As an end user you will need to push your upstream, the people who | > > > > you pay, along with a load of other people to get them to do IPv6. | > > > > If they don't and you still want it, go to another ISP. | > > > | > > > And if there is no available ISP? As I said before, saying 'give me | >IPv6 | > > > transit or I'll disconnect from the Internet' is not a credible threat. | > > > | > > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are | >multiple | > > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. | > > > -- | > > > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) | > > > Sto pro veritate | > > > _______________________________________________ | > > > 6bone mailing list | > > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | > > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | > > | > > _______________________________________________ | > > 6bone mailing list | > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | > | >_______________________________________________ | >6bone mailing list | >6bone@mailman.isi.edu | >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | | _______________________________________________ | 6bone mailing list | 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Wed Mar 5 12:48:34 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 20:48:34 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304173607.01facc70@mail.bur.st> <5.1.0.14.0.20030304224833.031a2bd8@mail.bur.st> Message-ID: Hi Trent, hope your not confusing him with me :0) I certainly haven't done much lately Gav... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Trent Lloyd" To: "Bill Manning" Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 | At 05:50 AM 4/03/2003 -0800, Bill Manning wrote: | > Once Gavin gets the paperwork processed, WAIX will have a v6 | > prefix delegated from ep.net for WAIX participants to use for | > native peering. | | really? cool i didnt know he got this far. | i suspected he hadn't done much at all actually | | | >% We have a local internet exchange in Perth called "WAIX" and i am hoping to | >% get some ipv6 transport happening over that | >% The founder/guy who runs it has expressed interest but naturally he is a | >% busy man and since not that many people are into it i guess its not high on | >% his to-do list | >% | >% My local uni has connected through aarnet, and you can get a 'tunnel' from | >% 6bone@progsoc.org.au (email) who come of [i forget] | >% | >% As you said, the 4 TLA owners there are unlikely to do much - a shame. | >% | >% Is it possible for a 'group' to get a TLA? | >% maybe an informal associated of people from random ISPs and just people got | >% together and got a TLA which they could do stuff with? | >% I'd be interested. | >% | >% At 02:23 PM 3/03/2003 +1000, Dan Reeder wrote: | >% >let me expand on my point below - | >% >according to sixxs, there's four TLAs in australia: Connect, Telstra, NTT, | >% >and AARNET | >% > | >% >from what I can determine, Connect has been idle since it's inception in | >% >1999; Telstra has a boss who thinks packet switching is an immature | >% >technology, not to mention the fact that their left hand doesn't know what | >% >the right hand is doing in an organisation that big; NTT seems to be | >for big | >% >business ($$) only; and Aarnet for educational institutions only. | >% > | >% >does anyone who lives in a country similarly constrained have any ideas | >% >about how to get things progressing? | >% > | >% >dan | >% >----- Original Message ----- | >% >From: "Dan Reeder" | >% >To: "Jonathan Guthrie" ; "Jeroen Massar" | >% > | >% >Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> | >% >Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:31 AM | >% >Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 | >% > | >% > | >% > > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are | >% >multiple | >% > > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. | >% > > | >% > > and, dare i say it, in each major region of the world too? | >% > > i'm yet to see a non-tunnelled solution for the home user in .au | >% > > | >% > > dan | >% > > | >% > > ----- Original Message ----- | >% > > From: "Jonathan Guthrie" | >% > > To: "Jeroen Massar" | >% > > Cc: "'Michael Sturtz'" ; <6bone@ISI.EDU> | >% > > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:34 AM | >% > > Subject: Re: [6bone] Getting ISPs to use IPv6 | >% > > | >% > > | >% > > > | >% > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 18:02:32 Jeroen Massar wrote: | >% > > > > As an end user you will need to push your upstream, the people who | >% > > > > you pay, along with a load of other people to get them to do IPv6. | >% > > > > If they don't and you still want it, go to another ISP. | >% > > > | >% > > > And if there is no available ISP? As I said before, saying 'give me | >% >IPv6 | >% > > > transit or I'll disconnect from the Internet' is not a credible | >threat. | >% > > > | >% > > > It is premature to schedule the end of the 6bone until there are | >% >multiple | >% > > > dialup and broadband providers in the USA. | >% > > > -- | >% > > > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) | >% > > > Sto pro veritate | >% > > > _______________________________________________ | >% > > > 6bone mailing list | >% > > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | >% > > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | >% > > | >% > > _______________________________________________ | >% > > 6bone mailing list | >% > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | >% > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | >% > | >% >_______________________________________________ | >% >6bone mailing list | >% >6bone@mailman.isi.edu | >% >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | >% | >% _______________________________________________ | >% 6bone mailing list | >% 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | >% http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | >% | > | > | >-- | >--bill | > | >Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and | >certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). | > | >_______________________________________________ | >6bone mailing list | >6bone@mailman.isi.edu | >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | | _______________________________________________ | 6bone mailing list | 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From tbegin@tf1.fr Wed Mar 5 15:13:15 2003 From: tbegin@tf1.fr (BEGIN, Thomas) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:13:15 +0100 Subject: [6bone] DNS servers Message-ID: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCA28@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> HI, I'm wondering what's the way for specifying to a host DNS server's addresses. I mean are these addresses necessary (from DNS servers) stocked in each individual host (as it used to be for IPv4)? or is there a way to give this information to routers ? I came to this question after reading the cisco's documentation about IPv6 commands (http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t2/ipv6/ftipv6c.htm) which specifies about giving to routers DNS server's addresses. Thanks Thomas From bmanning@ISI.EDU Wed Mar 5 17:03:30 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:03:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] DNS servers In-Reply-To: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCA28@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> from "BEGIN, Thomas" at "Mar 5, 3 04:13:15 pm" Message-ID: <200303051703.h25H3Us08551@boreas.isi.edu> % HI, % I'm wondering what's the way for specifying to a host DNS server's addresses. % I mean are these addresses necessary (from DNS servers) stocked in each individual host (as it used to be for IPv4)? or is there a way to give this information to routers ? % I came to this question after reading the cisco's documentation about IPv6 commands (http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t2/ipv6/ftipv6c.htm) which specifies about giving to routers DNS server's addresses. % % Thanks % % Thomas % _______________________________________________ you mean like this: search ip6.int ep.net nameserver 198.32.2.10 nameserver 2001:478:6:0:230:48ff:fe22:6a29 nameserver 198.32.6.11 nameserver 3ffe:805::2d0:b7ff:fee8:c4d9 --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From tbegin@tf1.fr Wed Mar 5 17:09:57 2003 From: tbegin@tf1.fr (BEGIN, Thomas) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:09:57 +0100 Subject: [6bone] DNS servers Message-ID: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCA2F@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> Hello, No I mean I quite sure it is possible to give DNS to every hosts by entering IP address for each of them (like in IPv4). True ? But my real question is: are the router able to advertise to hosts what are DNS addresse's ? It's what I've understood by reading Cisco documentation... -----Message d'origine----- De : Bill Manning [mailto:bmanning@ISI.EDU] Envoyé : mercredi 5 mars 2003 18:04 À : BEGIN, Thomas Cc : 6bone@ISI.EDU Objet : Re: [6bone] DNS servers % HI, % I'm wondering what's the way for specifying to a host DNS server's addresses. % I mean are these addresses necessary (from DNS servers) stocked in each individual host (as it used to be for IPv4)? or is there a way to give this information to routers ? % I came to this question after reading the cisco's documentation about IPv6 commands (http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t2/ipv6/ftipv6c.htm) which specifies about giving to routers DNS server's addresses. % % Thanks % % Thomas % _______________________________________________ you mean like this: search ip6.int ep.net nameserver 198.32.2.10 nameserver 2001:478:6:0:230:48ff:fe22:6a29 nameserver 198.32.6.11 nameserver 3ffe:805::2d0:b7ff:fee8:c4d9 --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From bmanning@ISI.EDU Wed Mar 5 17:37:17 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:37:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] DNS servers In-Reply-To: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCA2F@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> from "BEGIN, Thomas" at "Mar 5, 3 06:09:57 pm" Message-ID: <200303051737.h25HbHc11014@boreas.isi.edu> % Hello, % No I mean I quite sure it is possible to give DNS to every hosts by entering IP address for each of them (like in IPv4). True ? not sure I understand the question then. clearly one can create DNS zone files that map v6 addresses to names and names to v6 addresses % % But my real question is: are the router able to advertise to hosts what are DNS addresse's ? It's what I've understood by reading Cisco documentation... maybe. this maybe something like the DHCP option to write the /etc/resolv.conf file, if it exists. % % % -----Message d'origine----- % De : Bill Manning [mailto:bmanning@ISI.EDU] % Envoyé : mercredi 5 mars 2003 18:04 % À : BEGIN, Thomas % Cc : 6bone@ISI.EDU % Objet : Re: [6bone] DNS servers % % % % HI, % % I'm wondering what's the way for specifying to a host DNS server's addresses. % % I mean are these addresses necessary (from DNS servers) stocked in each individual host (as it used to be for IPv4)? or is there a way to give this information to routers ? % % I came to this question after reading the cisco's documentation about IPv6 commands (http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t2/ipv6/ftipv6c.htm) which specifies about giving to routers DNS server's addresses. % % % % Thanks % % % % Thomas % % _______________________________________________ % % you mean like this: % % search ip6.int ep.net % nameserver 198.32.2.10 % nameserver 2001:478:6:0:230:48ff:fe22:6a29 % nameserver 198.32.6.11 % nameserver 3ffe:805::2d0:b7ff:fee8:c4d9 % % % --bill % Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and % certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). % _______________________________________________ % 6bone mailing list % 6bone@mailman.isi.edu % http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone % -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From tvo@EnterZone.Net Wed Mar 5 18:01:11 2003 From: tvo@EnterZone.Net (John Fraizer) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:01:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [6bone] DNS servers In-Reply-To: <200303051737.h25HbHc11014@boreas.isi.edu> Message-ID: I think he's talking about assigning the host it's DNS resolvers in a dynamic (IE; DHCP) manner in much the same way that a radius server does for a IPv4 dialup client. --- John Fraizer | High-Security Datacenter Services | President | Dedicated circuits 64k - 155M OC3 | EnterZone, Inc | Virtual, Dedicated, Colocation | http://www.enterzone.net/ | Network Consulting Services | On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Bill Manning wrote: > % Hello, > % No I mean I quite sure it is possible to give DNS to every hosts by entering IP address for each of them (like in IPv4). True ? > > not sure I understand the question then. clearly one can create > DNS zone files that map v6 addresses to names and names to v6 addresses > > % > % But my real question is: are the router able to advertise to hosts what are DNS addresse's ? It's what I've understood by reading Cisco documentation... > > maybe. this maybe something like the DHCP option to write the > /etc/resolv.conf file, if it exists. > > > % > % > % -----Message d'origine----- > % De : Bill Manning [mailto:bmanning@ISI.EDU] > % Envoyé : mercredi 5 mars 2003 18:04 > % À : BEGIN, Thomas > % Cc : 6bone@ISI.EDU > % Objet : Re: [6bone] DNS servers > % > % > % % HI, > % % I'm wondering what's the way for specifying to a host DNS server's addresses. > % % I mean are these addresses necessary (from DNS servers) stocked in each individual host (as it used to be for IPv4)? or is there a way to give this information to routers ? > % % I came to this question after reading the cisco's documentation about IPv6 commands (http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t2/ipv6/ftipv6c.htm) which specifies about giving to routers DNS server's addresses. > % % > % % Thanks > % % > % % Thomas > % % _______________________________________________ > % > % you mean like this: > % > % search ip6.int ep.net > % nameserver 198.32.2.10 > % nameserver 2001:478:6:0:230:48ff:fe22:6a29 > % nameserver 198.32.6.11 > % nameserver 3ffe:805::2d0:b7ff:fee8:c4d9 > % > % > % --bill > % Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and > % certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). > % _______________________________________________ > % 6bone mailing list > % 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > % http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > % > > > -- > --bill > > Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and > certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From sivav@qualcomm.com Wed Mar 5 20:28:08 2003 From: sivav@qualcomm.com (Siva Veerepalli) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:28:08 -0800 Subject: [6bone] DNS servers In-Reply-To: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCA28@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupe tf1.fr> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20030305122256.044679b0@jittlov.qualcomm.com> DHCPv6 could be used to assign the name server IP address to the host. Alternatively, there is currently a draft (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-dns-discovery-07.txt) that specifies the use of well-known site-local addresses to be used as the name server addresses by the resolvers. Siva At 04:13 PM 3/5/2003 +0100, BEGIN, Thomas wrote: >HI, >I'm wondering what's the way for specifying to a host DNS server's addresses. >I mean are these addresses necessary (from DNS servers) stocked in each >individual host (as it used to be for IPv4)? or is there a way to give >this information to routers ? >I came to this question after reading the cisco's documentation about IPv6 >commands >(http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t2/ipv6/ftipv6c.htm) >which specifies about giving to routers DNS server's addresses. > >Thanks > >Thomas >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From hank@att.net.il Thu Mar 6 08:12:28 2003 From: hank@att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:12:28 +0200 Subject: [6bone] Newbie BGP questions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030305173507.05020e80@max.att.net.il> References: <15974.1558.327761.213543@limmat.switch.ch> <5.1.0.14.2.20030305160633.00fd6638@max.att.net.il> <15973.64915.864666.679292@limmat.switch.ch> <5.1.0.14.2.20030305160633.00fd6638@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030306100108.050b9168@max.att.net.il> Please excuse the newbie questions. Looking thru the BGPv6 table I came across some things that I didn't understand: 1) This /16 doesn't appear in whois.6bone.net: BGP routing table entry for 2002::/16, version 1154 Paths: (1 available, best #1) Not advertised to any peer 559 1930 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F from 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F (130.59.32.38) Origin incomplete, localpref 100, valid, external, best Is this legal? 2) The AS paths are usually short (3-5 hops) but 2 caught my eye: *> 3FFE:F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F 0 559 9044 5424 10318 5623 6939 6939 2042 3836 4618 9264 7660 22388 11537 786 1853 1853 1853 1853 1853 6680 1103 2602 2200 9112 6830 12702 3549 4697 10566 13944 22 i *> 3FFE:1F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F 0 559 9044 5424 10318 12199 145 4554 278 6435 17715 6939 4716 2500 4697 3320 293 6175 7580 10566 15180 1251 1916 11537 22 5609 6830 1755 i Is this normal? Thanks, Hank From bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net Thu Mar 6 13:42:26 2003 From: bortzmeyer@gitoyen.net (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:42:26 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Newbie BGP questions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030306100108.050b9168@max.att.net.il> References: <15974.1558.327761.213543@limmat.switch.ch> <5.1.0.14.2.20030305160633.00fd6638@max.att.net.il> <15973.64915.864666.679292@limmat.switch.ch> <5.1.0.14.2.20030305160633.00fd6638@max.att.net.il> <5.1.0.14.2.20030306100108.050b9168@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <20030306134226.GA17662@nic.fr> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:12:28AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote a message of 35 lines which said: > 1) This /16 doesn't appear in whois.6bone.net: > > BGP routing table entry for 2002::/16, version 1154 ... > Is this legal? Yes, it is 6to4. RFC 3068. > *> 3FFE:F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F > 0 559 9044 5424 > 10318 5623 6939 6939 2042 3836 4618 9264 7660 22388 11537 786 1853 1853 > 1853 1853 1853 6680 1103 2602 2200 9112 6830 12702 3549 4697 10566 13944 22 > i Welcome to the 6bone hell . BTW, on my site, I see only "13193 10566 22". From tbegin@tf1.fr Thu Mar 6 09:17:23 2003 From: tbegin@tf1.fr (BEGIN, Thomas) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:17:23 +0100 Subject: [6bone] DNS servers : Precisions Message-ID: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF4@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> OK I hope this time I could explain my pb clearlier... It's all about stateless configuration in IPv6. To be quick, how do hosts learn DNS server addresses ? In other way, is the setup for DNS servers necessary manual (like in IPv4 without DHCP) ? Or is it possible for hosts to retrieve DNS addresses automatically (thanks to routers (cf Cisco)?) ??? Or may be DNS servers addresses are automatically well known from hosts as the draft tends to do (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-dns-discovery-07.txt)... ? Thanks for reading this mail, again Thomas From gert@space.net Thu Mar 6 14:19:12 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:19:12 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Newbie BGP questions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030306100108.050b9168@max.att.net.il>; from hank@att.net.il on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:12:28AM +0200 References: <15974.1558.327761.213543@limmat.switch.ch> <5.1.0.14.2.20030305160633.00fd6638@max.att.net.il> <15973.64915.864666.679292@limmat.switch.ch> <5.1.0.14.2.20030305160633.00fd6638@max.att.net.il> <5.1.0.14.2.20030305173507.05020e80@max.att.net.il> <5.1.0.14.2.20030306100108.050b9168@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <20030306151912.O15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 10:12:28AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Please excuse the newbie questions. Looking thru the BGPv6 table I came > across some things that I didn't understand: > > 1) This /16 doesn't appear in whois.6bone.net: > > BGP routing table entry for 2002::/16, version 1154 > Paths: (1 available, best #1) > Not advertised to any peer > 559 1930 > 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F from 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F (130.59.32.38) > Origin incomplete, localpref 100, valid, external, best > > Is this legal? Yes, this is legal. This is the 6to4 prefix. It's "anycasted", that is, every ISP that runs a 6to4 gateway can announce the 2002::/16 prefix. > 2) The AS paths are usually short (3-5 hops) but 2 caught my eye: > > *> 3FFE:F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F > 0 559 9044 5424 > 10318 5623 6939 6939 2042 3836 4618 9264 7660 22388 11537 786 1853 1853 > 1853 1853 1853 6680 1103 2602 2200 9112 6830 12702 3549 4697 10566 13944 22 i > > *> 3FFE:1F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F > 0 559 9044 5424 > 10318 12199 145 4554 278 6435 17715 6939 4716 2500 4697 3320 293 6175 7580 > 10566 15180 1251 1916 11537 22 5609 6830 1755 i > > Is this normal? No. Well, yes and no. It's "normal" in the sense that this happens every now and then. We have known IPv6 BGP withdrawal problems "somewhere out there". I have been observing these route ghosts since about two years or so. Things have improved, but every now and then we still see some. Of course it's not normal in the sense of "it should be that way" :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57021 (57147) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From bmanning@ISI.EDU Thu Mar 6 19:10:06 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:10:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] Newbie BGP questions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030306100108.050b9168@max.att.net.il> from Hank Nussbacher at "Mar 6, 3 10:12:28 am" Message-ID: <200303061910.h26JA7k28408@boreas.isi.edu> % Please excuse the newbie questions. Looking thru the BGPv6 table I came % across some things that I didn't understand: % % 1) This /16 doesn't appear in whois.6bone.net: % % BGP routing table entry for 2002::/16, version 1154 % Paths: (1 available, best #1) % Not advertised to any peer % 559 1930 % 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F from 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F (130.59.32.38) % Origin incomplete, localpref 100, valid, external, best % % Is this legal? yes. bob pulled the whois record for this delegation last month. % 2) The AS paths are usually short (3-5 hops) but 2 caught my eye: % % *> 3FFE:F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F % *> 3FFE:1F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F % % Is this normal? Sometimes. :) % Hank --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From pfs@cisco.com Fri Mar 7 02:09:10 2003 From: pfs@cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:09:10 +1000 Subject: [6bone] Newbie BGP questions In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030306100108.050b9168@max.att.net.il> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030305173507.05020e80@max.att.net.il> <15974.1558.327761.213543@limmat.switch.ch> <5.1.0.14.2.20030305160633.00fd6638@max.att.net.il> <15973.64915.864666.679292@limmat.switch.ch> <5.1.0.14.2.20030305160633.00fd6638@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030307120653.03ded008@localhost> At 10:12 06/03/2003 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >Please excuse the newbie questions. Looking thru the BGPv6 table I came >across some things that I didn't understand: > >2) The AS paths are usually short (3-5 hops) but 2 caught my eye: > >*> 3FFE:F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F > 0 559 9044 > 5424 10318 5623 6939 6939 2042 3836 4618 9264 7660 22388 11537 786 1853 > 1853 1853 1853 1853 6680 1103 2602 2200 9112 6830 12702 3549 4697 10566 > 13944 22 i > >*> 3FFE:1F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F > 0 559 9044 > 5424 10318 12199 145 4554 278 6435 17715 6939 4716 2500 4697 3320 293 > 6175 7580 10566 15180 1251 1916 11537 22 5609 6830 1755 i > >Is this normal? If they bother you, you can ignore them on a Cisco router by using the "bgp maxas-limit N" command, where "N" is the max AS-path length you want to see. Doesn't fix the problem, but at least helps stop it from being propagated any further. philip -- From cmitch@windows.microsoft.com Fri Mar 7 04:27:25 2003 From: cmitch@windows.microsoft.com (Chris Mitchell) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:27:25 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta Message-ID: <7AA9FE9DAF2C0947B47A0D7F87DBD92E1F0FD8@win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2E461.DACFE545" ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E461.DACFE545 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, you may have seen one of the articles published last week about a new beta release of an application called Threedegrees that Microsoft released for the young "NetGen" market. In case you didn't hear about this or haven't had time to read about the application I wanted to be sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only application. It is available for beta on www.threedegrees.com and I encourage you all to check it out. =20 You can also read more about the underlying peer to peer and IPv6 technologies we are shipping with Threedegrees at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/feb03/02-26sdkannouncespr. asp. =20 If you have any questions or comments please let me know. Thanks Chris Mitchell Microsoft - Windows Networking - IPv6 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E461.DACFE545 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, you may have seen one of the articles published = last week about a new beta release of an application called Threedegrees that Microsoft released for the young “NetGen” market.  In = case you didn’t hear about this or haven’t had time to read about the application I wanted to be sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only = application.  It is available for beta on www.threedegrees.com and I = encourage you all to check it out.

 

You can also read more about the underlying peer to = peer and IPv6 technologies we are shipping with Threedegrees at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/feb03/02-26sdk= announcespr.asp.

 

If you have any questions or comments please let me = know.

Thanks

Chris Mitchell

Microsoft – Windows Networking – = IPv6

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E461.DACFE545-- --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary-- From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Fri Mar 7 07:20:15 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 23:20:15 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Newbie BGP questions Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54C78@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> > Hank Nussbacher wrote: > 2) The AS paths are usually short (3-5 hops) but 2 caught my eye: > *> 3FFE:F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F 0 559 9044 5424 10318 > 5623 6939 6939 2042 3836 4618 9264 7660 22388 11537 786 1853 1853 > 1853 1853 1853 6680 1103 2602 2200 9112 6830 12702 3549 4697 10566 > 13944 22 i > *> 3FFE:1F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F 0 559 9044 5424 10318 > 12199 145 4554 278 6435 17715 6939 4716 2500 4697 3320 293 6175 > 7580 10566 15180 1251 1916 11537 22 5609 6830 1755 i > Is this normal? I believe the acronym for this is "SNAFU" which is somehow close to the standard state of the 6bone. Welcome aboard. Looks like the good old mrtd withdraw bug again. Consider filtering, these mile-long AS-PATHs used to be common but I don't see a single one in my own BGP table right now. Michel. From gert@space.net Fri Mar 7 14:49:37 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 15:49:37 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta In-Reply-To: <7AA9FE9DAF2C0947B47A0D7F87DBD92E1F0FD8@win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>; from cmitch@windows.microsoft.com on Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:27:25PM -0800 References: <7AA9FE9DAF2C0947B47A0D7F87DBD92E1F0FD8@win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Message-ID: <20030307154937.T15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:27:25PM -0800, Chris Mitchell wrote: > this or haven't had time to read about the application I wanted to be > sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only application. It is available for > beta on www.threedegrees.com and I > encourage you all to check it out. Cool! (On the other hand: www.threedegrees.com isn't reachable over IPv6, so it's kind of "incomplete"...) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57021 (57147) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From jeroen@unfix.org Fri Mar 7 15:33:25 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:33:25 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Newbie BGP questions In-Reply-To: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54C78@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> Message-ID: <002b01c2e4be$e585de30$210d640a@unfix.org> Michel Py wrote: > > Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > 2) The AS paths are usually short (3-5 hops) but 2 caught my eye: > > *> 3FFE:F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F 0 559 9044 5424 10318 > > 5623 6939 6939 2042 3836 4618 9264 7660 22388 11537 786 1853 1853 > > 1853 1853 1853 6680 1103 2602 2200 9112 6830 12702 3549 4697 10566 > > 13944 22 i > > *> 3FFE:1F00::/24 3FFE:2000:0:41D::22F 0 559 9044 5424 10318 > > 12199 145 4554 278 6435 17715 6939 4716 2500 4697 3320 293 6175 > > 7580 10566 15180 1251 1916 11537 22 5609 6830 1755 i > > Is this normal? > > I believe the acronym for this is "SNAFU" which is somehow > close to the standard state of the 6bone. Welcome aboard. Fortunatly we are moving away from the state the 6bone used to have ;) Unfortunatly though the contact(s) for certain AS's in the above path apparently aren't reachable per email :( Though I suspect that the routers doing this are not that stable at all, either they crash or they get reset once in a while as sometimes mysterically the ghosts vanish. More about these ghosts can be found on http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ > Looks like the good old mrtd withdraw bug again. Consider filtering, > these mile-long AS-PATHs used to be common but I don't see a > single one in my own BGP table right now. Indeed, the smart people filter out those bogusly long ASpaths. Greets, Jeroen From jeanthery@olympus-zone.net Fri Mar 7 22:04:17 2003 From: jeanthery@olympus-zone.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jean_Th=E9ry?=) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 23:04:17 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta References: <7AA9FE9DAF2C0947B47A0D7F87DBD92E1F0FD8@win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <20030307154937.T15927@Space.Net> Message-ID: <003301c2e4f5$7ff9e840$0202010a@teraii> Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:27:25PM -0800, Chris Mitchell wrote: >> this or haven't had time to read about the application I wanted to be >> sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only application. It is available >> for beta on www.threedegrees.com and >> I encourage you all to check it out. > > Cool! > > (On the other hand: www.threedegrees.com isn't reachable over IPv6, so > it's kind of "incomplete"...) > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster yea there is no AAAA or A6 record in the domain threedegrees.com Cordialy, Jean Théry Administration Réseaux, Systèmes & Hosting Olympus-Zone From jeroen@unfix.org Fri Mar 7 23:02:50 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 00:02:50 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta In-Reply-To: <003301c2e4f5$7ff9e840$0202010a@teraii> Message-ID: <007201c2e4fd$ae1bc6f0$210d640a@unfix.org> Jean Théry wrote: > Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:27:25PM -0800, Chris Mitchell wrote: > >> this or haven't had time to read about the application I > wanted to be > >> sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only application. It is available > >> for beta on www.threedegrees.com > and > >> I encourage you all to > check it out. > > > > Cool! > > > > (On the other hand: www.threedegrees.com isn't reachable > over IPv6, so > > it's kind of "incomplete"...) > > > > Gert Doering > > -- NetMaster > > yea there is no AAAA or A6 record in the domain threedegrees.com Use http://www.threedegrees.com.sixxs.org/ , happy now ? ;) Btw, one should *NOT* use A6. And I'd rather see Google, Altavista, Dmoz, CNN and the likes do IPv6 first. Greets, Jeroen From jeanthery@olympus-zone.net Sat Mar 8 03:25:27 2003 From: jeanthery@olympus-zone.net (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jean_Th=E9ry?=) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 04:25:27 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta References: <007201c2e4fd$ae1bc6f0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <013c01c2e522$5d285bd0$0202010a@teraii> Jeroen Massar wrote: > Jean Théry wrote: > >> Gert Doering wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 08:27:25PM -0800, Chris Mitchell wrote: >>>> this or haven't had time to read about the application I >> wanted to be >>>> sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only application. It is available >>>> for beta on www.threedegrees.com >> and >>>> I encourage you all to >> check it out. >>> >>> Cool! >>> >>> (On the other hand: www.threedegrees.com isn't reachable >> over IPv6, so >>> it's kind of "incomplete"...) >>> >>> Gert Doering >>> -- NetMaster >> >> yea there is no AAAA or A6 record in the domain threedegrees.com > > Use http://www.threedegrees.com.sixxs.org/ , happy now ? ;) > > Btw, one should *NOT* use A6. > And I'd rather see Google, Altavista, Dmoz, CNN and the likes do IPv6 > first. > > Greets, > Jeroen hehe :) Cordialy, Jean Théry Administration Réseaux, Systèmes & Hosting Olympus-Zone From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Sat Mar 8 10:17:24 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 18:17:24 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta References: <007201c2e4fd$ae1bc6f0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeroen Massar" To: "'Jean Théry'" Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU>; Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 7:02 AM Subject: RE: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta yea there is no AAAA or A6 record in the domain threedegrees.com | | Use http://www.threedegrees.com.sixxs.org/ , happy now ? ;) Why is it that I can not get to IPv6 Only sites like this.?? The Latest IE6 should show IPv6 sites ok shouldn't it? Windows IP Configuration Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : madaboutipv6 Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . : Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : Yes WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No DNS Suffix Search List. . . . . . : vic.bigpond.net.au Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 5: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Efficient Networks Enternet P.P.P.o. E Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 44-45-53-54-77-77 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 144.137.252.133 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::4645:53ff:fe54:7777%4 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 144.137.252.133 DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 1.1.1.1 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 61.9.128.16 61.9.128.13 fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Tuesday, 4 March 2003 6:16:04 PM Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Tuesday, 19 January 2038 11:14:07 AM Ethernet adapter Network Bridge (Network Bridge): Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : MAC Bridge Miniport Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 02-40-D0-2A-AF-71 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:90f1:5098:252d:3eb7 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:cc71:215c:3c83:6492 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:480d:c580:2cc9:863e IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:bd90:af8b:f235:a243 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:5d0c:da6b:bacc:69f7 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:40:d0ff:fe2a:af71 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::40:d0ff:fe2a:af71%5 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 Tunnel adapter 6to4 Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : 6to4 Tunneling Pseudo-Interface Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 90-89-FC-85 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:9089:fc85::9089:fc85 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled Tunnel adapter Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 90-89-FC-85 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::5efe:144.137.252.133%2 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled Tunnel adapter Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : C0-A8-00-01 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::5efe:192.168.0.1%2 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled | | Btw, one should *NOT* use A6. | And I'd rather see Google, Altavista, Dmoz, CNN and the likes do IPv6 | first. | | Greets, | Jeroen | | _______________________________________________ | 6bone mailing list | 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From jeroen@unfix.org Sat Mar 8 11:15:27 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:15:27 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001e01c2e564$087dfd00$210d640a@unfix.org> Gav [mailto:old_mc_donald@hotmail.com] wrote: > Jeroen Massar wrote: > | > | Use http://www.threedegrees.com.sixxs.org/ , happy now ? ;) > > Why is it that I can not get to IPv6 Only sites like this.?? > The Latest IE6 should show IPv6 sites ok shouldn't it? Looking at your data you have Windows XP > Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 5: > > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : > Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Efficient > Networks Enternet > P.P.P.o. > E Adapter > Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 44-45-53-54-77-77 > Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes > Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : No > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 144.137.252.133 > Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::4645:53ff:fe54:7777%4 Only IPv4 on your ADSL (at least PPPoE should be ADSL) > Ethernet adapter Network Bridge (Network Bridge): > > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : > Description . . . . . . . . . . . : MAC Bridge Miniport > Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 02-40-D0-2A-AF-71 > Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 > Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:90f1:5098:252d:3eb7 > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:cc71:215c:3c83:6492 > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:480d:c580:2cc9:863e > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:bd90:af8b:f235:a243 > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:5d0c:da6b:bacc:69f7 > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:40:d0ff:fe2a:af71 A private network with 6to4 addresses in RFC1918 space, these won't ever work. > Tunnel adapter 6to4 Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: > > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : > Description . . . . . . . . . . . : 6to4 Tunneling > Pseudo-Interface > Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 90-89-FC-85 > Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:9089:fc85::9089:fc85 This _could_ work, it does use your public IPv4 of your PPPoE adapter. Based on the fact which outgoing interface your host picks it should work. Try some tracerouting and stuff, pings and the like and find out ;) Also when one installs the ThreeDegrees software, and thus the P2P SDK you get a newer IPv6 stack which supports Teredo. IMHO (<-- watch those four letters ;) a configured tunnels is better. Especially while debugging and based on latency times. So you would prolly be better off getting a tunnel. Then again checking your IPv4 address you are located in Australia, thus, mail progsoc@, check their whois: http://www.cs-ipv6.lancs.ac.uk/ipv6/6Bone/Whois/PROGSOC.html BTW, checking: http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?prefix=2002::/16&matchtype=more I see quite a lot of more specifics for the 6to4 space. Though private peerings are allowed there ofcourse, they should never pop up in the dfz. Greets, Jeroen From dan@reeder.name Sun Mar 9 23:20:19 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:20:19 +1000 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta References: <7AA9FE9DAF2C0947B47A0D7F87DBD92E1F0FD8@win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Message-ID: <006f01c2e692$7a4d86b0$0200a8c0@elf> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C2E6E6.44C54240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Any ideas on how long it takes for them to permit you to join the peer = to peer update program?=20 Dan ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Chris Mitchell=20 To: 6bone@ISI.EDU ; nav6tf@ipv6forum.com=20 Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:27 PM Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta Hi, you may have seen one of the articles published last week about a = new beta release of an application called Threedegrees that Microsoft = released for the young "NetGen" market. In case you didn't hear about = this or haven't had time to read about the application I wanted to be = sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only application. It is available for = beta on www.threedegrees.com and I encourage you all to check it out. =20 You can also read more about the underlying peer to peer and IPv6 = technologies we are shipping with Threedegrees at: = http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/feb03/02-26sdkannouncespr.a= sp. =20 If you have any questions or comments please let me know. Thanks Chris Mitchell Microsoft - Windows Networking - IPv6 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C2E6E6.44C54240 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Any ideas on how long it takes for them = to permit=20 you to join the peer to peer update program?
 
Dan
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Chris Mitchell
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 = 2:27=20 PM
Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has = released=20 IPv6-only application for Beta

Hi, you may have seen = one of the=20 articles published last week about a new beta release of an = application called=20 Threedegrees that Microsoft released for the young =93NetGen=94 = market.  In=20 case you didn=92t hear about this or haven=92t had time to read about = the=20 application I wanted to be sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only = application.=20  It is available for beta on www.threedegrees.com and I = encourage=20 you all to check it out.

 

You can also read more = about the=20 underlying peer to peer and IPv6 technologies we are shipping with=20 Threedegrees at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/feb03/02-26sdka= nnouncespr.asp.

 

If you have any = questions or=20 comments please let me know.

Thanks

Chris=20 Mitchell

Microsoft =96 Windows = Networking =96=20 IPv6

 

------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C2E6E6.44C54240-- From dan@reeder.name Mon Mar 10 09:07:34 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:07:34 +1000 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta References: <7AA9FE9DAF2C0947B47A0D7F87DBD92E1F0FD8@win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <006f01c2e692$7a4d86b0$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: <000b01c2e6e4$83c80150$0200a8c0@elf> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2E738.4EC7B190 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is it possible to get Teredo working on a machine that already has a = globally routable v6 address? I ask because from what I can determine = from the limited help available that the ThreeDegrees program requires = the use of the Teredo pseudo interface and a 2002:: address. I've got a 2001:: address from hurricane... and while my xp box here is = behind a v4 nat router, the v6 connectivity is via a linux box on the = lan which in turn has a public v4 address (thus not behind the nat = router)... hope that makes sense. Here's my ipconfig /all for you = anyway. thanks dan ---------------------- Windows IP Configuration Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : elf Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . : Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Unknown IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 3: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : netspace.net.au Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Macronix MX98715-Based = Ethernet Adapter (Generic) #2 Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-50-BF-13-A6-4B Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.2 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2001:470:1f00:510::2 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::250:bfff:fe13:a64b%4 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 202.161.117.211 139.130.4.4 fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Monday, 10 March 2003 = 6:48:25 PM Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Thursday, 13 March 2003 = 6:48:25 PM Tunnel adapter Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Teredo Tunneling = Pseudo-Interface Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 80-00-D8-91-35-D2-95-87 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::5445:5245:444f%5 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled Tunnel adapter Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : netspace.net.au Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Automatic Tunneling = Pseudo-Interface Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : C0-A8-00-02 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::5efe:192.168.0.2%2 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dan Reeder=20 To: Chris Mitchell ; 6bone@ISI.EDU ; nav6tf@ipv6forum.com=20 Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for = Beta Any ideas on how long it takes for them to permit you to join the peer = to peer update program?=20 Dan ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Chris Mitchell=20 To: 6bone@ISI.EDU ; nav6tf@ipv6forum.com=20 Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:27 PM Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for = Beta Hi, you may have seen one of the articles published last week about = a new beta release of an application called Threedegrees that Microsoft = released for the young "NetGen" market. In case you didn't hear about = this or haven't had time to read about the application I wanted to be = sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only application. It is available for = beta on www.threedegrees.com and I encourage you all to check it out. =20 You can also read more about the underlying peer to peer and IPv6 = technologies we are shipping with Threedegrees at: = http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/feb03/02-26sdkannouncespr.a= sp. =20 If you have any questions or comments please let me know. Thanks Chris Mitchell Microsoft - Windows Networking - IPv6 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2E738.4EC7B190 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is it possible to get Teredo working on = a machine=20 that already has a globally routable v6 address? I ask because from what = I can=20 determine from the limited help available that the ThreeDegrees program = requires=20 the use of the Teredo pseudo interface and a 2002:: = address.
I've got a 2001:: address from = hurricane... and=20 while my xp box here is behind a v4 nat router, the v6 connectivity is = via a=20 linux box on the lan which in turn has a public v4 address (thus not = behind the=20 nat router)... hope that makes sense. Here's my ipconfig /all for you=20 anyway.
 
thanks
dan
----------------------
Windows IP Configuration
 
        Host=20 Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : = elf
       =20 Primary Dns Suffix  . . . . . . .=20 :
        Node Type . . . . . . . = . . . .=20 . : Unknown
        IP Routing = Enabled. .=20 . . . . . . : No
        WINS = Proxy=20 Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
 
Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection=20 3:
 
       =20 Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :=20 netspace.net.au
        = Description . . .=20 . . . . . . . . : Macronix MX98715-Based Ethernet Adapter (Generic)=20 #2
        Physical Address. . . . = . . . .=20 . : 00-50-BF-13-A6-4B
        Dhcp = Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : = Yes
       =20 Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . :=20 Yes
        IP Address. . . . . . = . . . .=20 . . : 192.168.0.2
        Subnet = Mask . .=20 . . . . . . . . . : = 255.255.255.0
       =20 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . :=20 2001:470:1f00:510::2
        IP = Address. .=20 . . . . . . . . . . :=20 fe80::250:bfff:fe13:a64b%4
        = Default=20 Gateway . . . . . . . . . :=20 192.168.0.1
        DHCP Server . = . . . .=20 . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1
        = DNS=20 Servers . . . . . . . . . . . :=20 202.161.117.211
         =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;         =20 139.130.4.4
         &nbs= p;            = ;            =          =20 fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1
        &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;          =20 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1
        &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;          =20 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1
        Lease = Obtained.=20 . . . . . . . . . : Monday, 10 March 2003 6:48:25=20 PM
        Lease Expires . . . . . = . . . .=20 . : Thursday, 13 March 2003 6:48:25 PM
 
Tunnel adapter Teredo Tunneling=20 Pseudo-Interface:
 
       =20 Connection-specific DNS Suffix  .=20 :
        Description . . . . . . = . . . .=20 . : Teredo Tunneling=20 Pseudo-Interface
        Physical = Address.=20 . . . . . . . . :=20 80-00-D8-91-35-D2-95-87
        = Dhcp=20 Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : = No
       =20 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . :=20 fe80::5445:5245:444f%5
        = Default=20 Gateway . . . . . . . . . = :
       =20 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled
 
Tunnel adapter Automatic Tunneling=20 Pseudo-Interface:
 
       =20 Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :=20 netspace.net.au
        = Description . . .=20 . . . . . . . . : Automatic Tunneling=20 Pseudo-Interface
        Physical = Address.=20 . . . . . . . . : = C0-A8-00-02
        Dhcp=20 Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : = No
       =20 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . :=20 fe80::5efe:192.168.0.2%2
        = Default=20 Gateway . . . . . . . . . = :
        DNS=20 Servers . . . . . . . . . . . :=20 fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1
        &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;          =20 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1
        &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;          =20 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1
        NetBIOS = over=20 Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Dan = Reeder
To: Chris Mitchell ; 6bone@ISI.EDU = ; nav6tf@ipv6forum.com
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 = 9:20=20 AM
Subject: Re: [6bone] Microsoft = has=20 released IPv6-only application for Beta

Any ideas on how long it takes for = them to permit=20 you to join the peer to peer update program?
 
Dan
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Chris Mitchell =
To: 6bone@ISI.EDU ; nav6tf@ipv6forum.com
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 = 2:27=20 PM
Subject: [6bone] Microsoft = has released=20 IPv6-only application for Beta

Hi, you may have seen = one of the=20 articles published last week about a new beta release of an = application=20 called Threedegrees that Microsoft released for the young = =93NetGen=94 market.=20  In case you didn=92t hear about this or haven=92t had time to = read about=20 the application I wanted to be sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only = application.  It is available for beta on www.threedegrees.com and I = encourage=20 you all to check it out.

 

You can also read more = about the=20 underlying peer to peer and IPv6 technologies we are shipping with=20 Threedegrees at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/feb03/02-26sdka= nnouncespr.asp.

 

If you have any = questions or=20 comments please let me know.

Thanks

Chris=20 Mitchell

Microsoft =96 Windows = Networking =96=20 IPv6

 

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2E738.4EC7B190-- From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Mon Mar 10 15:10:03 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:10:03 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta References: <001e01c2e564$087dfd00$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: Hi Joroen, Ok, this is my fifth attempt at a reply here, if OE crashes on me again I'm gonna bin it. :0( ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeroen Massar" To: "'Gav'" Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 7:15 PM Subject: RE: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta | Gav [mailto:old_mc_donald@hotmail.com] wrote: | | > Jeroen Massar wrote: | | > | | > | Use http://www.threedegrees.com.sixxs.org/ , happy now ? ;) | > | > Why is it that I can not get to IPv6 Only sites like this.?? | > The Latest IE6 should show IPv6 sites ok shouldn't it? | | Looking at your data you have Windows XP Yes, XP Pro with SP1 etc and latest stack. | | > Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 5: | > | > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : | > Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Efficient | > Networks Enternet | > P.P.P.o. | > E Adapter | > Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 44-45-53-54-77-77 | > Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes | > Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : No | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 144.137.252.133 | > Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : | fe80::4645:53ff:fe54:7777%4 | | Only IPv4 on your ADSL (at least PPPoE should be ADSL) Yes ADSL, Telstra - Australias' biggest phone & internet provider give no information on any of their sites regarding IPv6. I have emailed their research dep't but don't think they know any more than I do. | | > Ethernet adapter Network Bridge (Network Bridge): | > | > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : | > Description . . . . . . . . . . . : MAC Bridge Miniport | > Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 02-40-D0-2A-AF-71 | > Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 | > Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : | 2002:c0a8:1:5:90f1:5098:252d:3eb7 | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : | 2002:c0a8:1:5:cc71:215c:3c83:6492 | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : | 2002:c0a8:1:5:480d:c580:2cc9:863e | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : | 2002:c0a8:1:5:bd90:af8b:f235:a243 | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : | 2002:c0a8:1:5:5d0c:da6b:bacc:69f7 | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : | 2002:c0a8:1:5:40:d0ff:fe2a:af71 | | A private network with 6to4 addresses in RFC1918 space, these won't ever | work. I can not find anything on RFC 1918 on the IETF site? However to me it does look like I'm trying to tunnel 6 through 4 on my own LAN? I did not configure this however, either M$ autoconfig did this or it was TILAB's tunnel software. I can not work out which. | | > Tunnel adapter 6to4 Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: | > | > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : | > Description . . . . . . . . . . . : 6to4 Tunneling | > Pseudo-Interface | > Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 90-89-FC-85 | > Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:9089:fc85::9089:fc85 | | This _could_ work, it does use your public IPv4 of your PPPoE adapter. How did you work this out. I thought part of the address was obtained from the MAC layer? | | Based on the fact which outgoing interface your host picks it should | work. | Try some tracerouting and stuff, pings and the like and find out ;) Ok, I did that, and get a 242ms round trip average from ipv6.research.microsoft.com. I also get the brief message from the IPv6 only website, so that one works. I have tried others without luck. | | Also when one installs the ThreeDegrees software, and thus the P2P SDK | you get a newer IPv6 stack which supports Teredo. | | IMHO (<-- watch those four letters ;) a configured tunnels is better. | Especially while debugging and based on latency times. So you would | prolly | be better off getting a tunnel. I thought I had a tunnel? Using TILAB's client software I have an address registrered until 2008. Then again checking your IPv4 address | you are located in Australia, thus, mail progsoc@, | check their whois: | http://www.cs-ipv6.lancs.ac.uk/ipv6/6Bone/Whois/PROGSOC.html I can not ping6 their (PROGSOC) website :0(. So they get their access from TRUMPET. I have emailed Peter Tattum several times (over time) with no reply. (I know he's a busy man, in which case the alternative email addys provided on the site should have someone available for a reply also!) | | BTW, checking: | http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?prefix=2002::/16&matchtype=more | I see quite a lot of more specifics for the 6to4 space. Though private | peerings are allowed there ofcourse, they should never pop up in the | dfz. Oh well, another site I can't get on :0(. I wonder if I have some kind of DNS resolver error? Will check it out. Speaking of which , is there a native IPv6 DNS root server yet? | | Greets, | Jeroen | | | _______________________________________________ | 6bone mailing list | 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone | --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From jeroen@unfix.org Mon Mar 10 15:13:36 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:13:36 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta In-Reply-To: <000b01c2e6e4$83c80150$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: <000901c2e717$a10aaa50$210d640a@unfix.org> Dan Reeder wrote: > Is it possible to get Teredo working on a machine that > already has a globally routable v6 address? I ask because > from what I can determine from the limited help available > that the ThreeDegrees program requires the use of the Teredo > pseudo interface and a 2002:: address. Nopes, it requires IPv6, and Teredo is just a helper. I just did a 'netsh interface ipv6 delete interface "Teredo"' or do it by number et voila... it works ;) (Would be a really odd and stupid requirement if it didn't) > I've got a 2001:: address from hurricane... and while my xp > box here is behind a v4 nat router, the v6 connectivity is > via a linux box on the lan which in turn has a public v4 > address (thus not behind the nat router)... hope that makes > sense. Here's my ipconfig /all for you anyway. > Tunnel adapter Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: > > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : > Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Teredo Tunneling > Pseudo-Interface > Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 80-00-D8-91-35-D2-95-87 > Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::5445:5245:444f%5 > Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : > NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled Delete this one and you are off. Address selection algo's simply pick the 'closest' interface. Note that one can also explictely disable teredo using: 'netsh interface ipv6 set teredo disable' And netsh does a lot more, imho 'netsh makes your windows look like a cisco' ;) Note that Teredo IP <-> Teredo IP could be faster than routing it over the IPv6 backbones. Greets, Jeroen From jeroen@unfix.org Mon Mar 10 15:30:46 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:30:46 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001101c2e71a$064d2440$210d640a@unfix.org> Gav [mailto:old_mc_donald@hotmail.com] wrote: > Hi Joroen, it's J_e_roen mind you ;) French people tend to write Jerome > | > Ethernet adapter Network Bridge (Network Bridge): > | > > | > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : > | > Description . . . . . . . . . . . : MAC Bridge Miniport > | > Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 02-40-D0-2A-AF-71 > | > Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No > | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 > | > Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 > | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : > | 2002:c0a8:1:5:90f1:5098:252d:3eb7 > | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : > | 2002:c0a8:1:5:cc71:215c:3c83:6492 > | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : > | 2002:c0a8:1:5:480d:c580:2cc9:863e > | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : > | 2002:c0a8:1:5:bd90:af8b:f235:a243 > | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : > | 2002:c0a8:1:5:5d0c:da6b:bacc:69f7 > | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : > | 2002:c0a8:1:5:40:d0ff:fe2a:af71 > | > | A private network with 6to4 addresses in RFC1918 space, these won't ever > | work. > > I can not find anything on RFC 1918 on the IETF site? > However to me it does look like I'm trying to tunnel 6 > through 4 on my own LAN? > I did not configure this however, either M$ autoconfig did > this or it was TILAB's tunnel software. I can not work out which. MS Autoconfig knows about RFC1918 (private address space, see: eg http://1918.rfc.wiretrip.org or type rfc1918 in google) and thus should not use that space for 6to4 tunnels. Also note that you are quite probably running ICS on your machine, at least that is what the "Network Bridge (Network Bridge)" could indicate. But indeed it's your own LAN and not the public Inet. > | > | > Tunnel adapter 6to4 Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: > | > > | > Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : > | > Description . . . . . . . . . . . : 6to4 Tunneling > | > Pseudo-Interface > | > Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 90-89-FC-85 > | > Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No > | > IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : > 2002:9089:fc85::9089:fc85 > | > | This _could_ work, it does use your public IPv4 of your > PPPoE adapter. > > How did you work this out. I thought part of the address was > obtained from the MAC layer? 2002:9089:fc85::9089:fc85 ^ ^^^^^^^^^ | +---------------- Your public IPv4 address (*1) +------------------------- 2002::/16 == 6to4 space *1 = 0x90 = 144 0x89 = 137 0xfc = 252 0x85 = 133 ----> 144.137.252.133 OrgName: Telstra NetRange: 144.137.0.0 - 144.137.255.255 CIDR: 144.137.0.0/16 NetName: TELECOMAU7 On the internet nobody is anonymous, or some other movie quote ;) > | Based on the fact which outgoing interface your host picks it should > | work. > | Try some tracerouting and stuff, pings and the like and find out ;) > > Ok, I did that, and get a 242ms round trip average from > ipv6.research.microsoft.com. > I also get the brief message from the IPv6 only website, so > that one works. I have tried others without luck. Show traceroutes. Also when using a 6to4 relay in the US when you are down under you should not expect good latencies. > | Also when one installs the ThreeDegrees software, and thus > > the P2P SDK > | you get a newer IPv6 stack which supports Teredo. > | > | IMHO (<-- watch those four letters ;) a configured tunnels > is better. > | Especially while debugging and based on latency times. So you would > | prolly be better off getting a tunnel. > > I thought I had a tunnel? Using TILAB's client software I > have an address registrered until 2008. That's not visible in your config output. > Then again checking your IPv4 address > | you are located in Australia, thus, mail progsoc@, > | check their whois: > | http://www.cs-ipv6.lancs.ac.uk/ipv6/6Bone/Whois/PROGSOC.html > > I can not ping6 their (PROGSOC) website :0(. > So they get their access from TRUMPET. > I have emailed Peter Tattum several times (over time) with no > reply. (I know he's a busy man, in which case the alternative email addys > provided on the site should have someone available for a reply also!) I think that the australian people should lobby at the current TLA holders for a good working 6to4 or a TB. Call them up if needed and put some pressure on them. > | BTW, checking: > | http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?prefix=2002::/16&matchtype=more > | I see quite a lot of more specifics for the 6to4 space. > Though private > | peerings are allowed there ofcourse, they should never pop up in the > | dfz. > > Oh well, another site I can't get on :0(. > I wonder if I have some kind of DNS resolver error? Will check it out. http://www.sixxs.net is IPv4 and IPv6 reachable. http://www.ipv4.sixxs.net is IPv4 only (as it got only a A address :) http://www.ipv6.sixxs.net is IPv6 only (as it got only a AAAA address :) > Speaking of which , is there a native IPv6 DNS root server yet? Yes, there is a testbed. Bill Manning knows all about it ;) And one can even get AAAA in the gtld servers when going thru some registrars, Joker and Netsol can't currently though :( Greets, Jeroen From cmitch@windows.microsoft.com Mon Mar 10 17:16:25 2003 From: cmitch@windows.microsoft.com (Chris Mitchell) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:16:25 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta Message-ID: <7AA9FE9DAF2C0947B47A0D7F87DBD92E3823E6@win-msg-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2E728.C7C83E68" ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E728.C7C83E68 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ThreeDegrees does not require a Teredo address. You should be able to use a native address without a Teredo address. =20 If you can't get this working please feel free to contact me or use the message boards on www.threedegrees.com . =20 Thanks =20 ________________________________ From: Dan Reeder [mailto:dan@reeder.name]=20 Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 1:08 AM To: Chris Mitchell; 6bone@ISI.EDU; nav6tf@ipv6forum.com =20 Is it possible to get Teredo working on a machine that already has a globally routable v6 address? I ask because from what I can determine from the limited help available that the ThreeDegrees program requires the use of the Teredo pseudo interface and a 2002:: address. I've got a 2001:: address from hurricane... and while my xp box here is behind a v4 nat router, the v6 connectivity is via a linux box on the lan which in turn has a public v4 address (thus not behind the nat router)... hope that makes sense. Here's my ipconfig /all for you anyway. =20 thanks dan ---------------------- Windows IP Configuration =20 Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : elf Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . : Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Unknown IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No =20 Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 3: =20 Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : netspace.net.au Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Macronix MX98715-Based Ethernet Adapter (Generic) #2 Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-50-BF-13-A6-4B Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.2 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2001:470:1f00:510::2 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::250:bfff:fe13:a64b%4 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 202.161.117.211 139.130.4.4 fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Monday, 10 March 2003 6:48:25 PM Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Thursday, 13 March 2003 6:48:25 PM =20 Tunnel adapter Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: =20 Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 80-00-D8-91-35-D2-95-87 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::5445:5245:444f%5 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled =20 Tunnel adapter Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: =20 Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : netspace.net.au Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : C0-A8-00-02 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::5efe:192.168.0.2%2 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dan Reeder =20 To: Chris Mitchell ; 6bone@ISI.EDU ; nav6tf@ipv6forum.com=20 Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta =20 Any ideas on how long it takes for them to permit you to join the peer to peer update program?=20 =20 Dan =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Chris Mitchell =20 To: 6bone@ISI.EDU ; nav6tf@ipv6forum.com=20 Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:27 PM Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta =20 Hi, you may have seen one of the articles published last week about a new beta release of an application called Threedegrees that Microsoft released for the young "NetGen" market. In case you didn't hear about this or haven't had time to read about the application I wanted to be sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only application. It is available for beta on www.threedegrees.com and I encourage you all to check it out. =20 You can also read more about the underlying peer to peer and IPv6 technologies we are shipping with Threedegrees at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/feb03/02-26sdkannouncespr. asp. =20 If you have any questions or comments please let me know. Thanks Chris Mitchell Microsoft - Windows Networking - IPv6 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E728.C7C83E68 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

ThreeDegrees does not require a = Teredo address.  You should be able to use a native address without a = Teredo address.

 

If you can’t get this working = please feel free to contact me or use the message boards on www.threedegrees.com.

 

Thanks

 

From: Dan = Reeder [mailto:dan@reeder.name]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 1:08 AM
To: Chris Mitchell; = 6bone@ISI.EDU; nav6tf@ipv6forum.com

 

Is it possible to get Teredo working on a machine = that already has a globally routable v6 address? I ask because from what I = can determine from the limited help available that the ThreeDegrees program requires the use of the Teredo pseudo interface and a 2002:: = address.

I've got a 2001:: address from hurricane... and while = my xp box here is behind a v4 nat router, the v6 connectivity is via a linux = box on the lan which in turn has a public v4 address (thus not behind the nat router)... hope that makes sense. Here's my ipconfig /all for you = anyway.

 

thanks

dan

----------------------

Windows IP Configuration

 

        Host Name = . . . . . . . . . . . . : elf
        Primary Dns Suffix  . . = . . . . . :
        Node Type . . . . . . . . . . = . . : Unknown
        IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . = . . : No
        WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . = . . : No

 

Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection = 3:

 

        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : netspace.net.au
        Description . . . . . . . . . = . . : Macronix MX98715-Based Ethernet Adapter (Generic) #2
        Physical Address. . . . . . . = . . : 00-50-BF-13-A6-4B
        Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . = . . : Yes
        Autoconfiguration Enabled . . = . . : Yes
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . = . . : 192.168.0.2
        Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . = . . : 255.255.255.0
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . = . . : 2001:470:1f00:510::2
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . = . . : fe80::250:bfff:fe13:a64b%4
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . = . . : 192.168.0.1
        DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . = . . : 192.168.0.1
        DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . = . . : 202.161.117.211
            &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;       139.130.4.4
            &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;       fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1
            &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;       fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1
            &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;       fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1
        Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . = . . : Monday, 10 March 2003 6:48:25 PM
        Lease Expires . . . . . . . . = . . : Thursday, 13 March 2003 6:48:25 PM

 

Tunnel adapter Teredo Tunneling = Pseudo-Interface:

 

        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . :
        Description . . . . . . . . . = . . : Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface
        Physical Address. . . . . . . = . . : 80-00-D8-91-35-D2-95-87
        Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . = . . : No
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . = . . : fe80::5445:5245:444f%5
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . = . . :
        NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . = . . : Disabled

 

Tunnel adapter Automatic Tunneling = Pseudo-Interface:

 

        Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : netspace.net.au
        Description . . . . . . . . . = . . : Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface
        Physical Address. . . . . . . = . . : C0-A8-00-02
        Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . = . . : No
        IP Address. . . . . . . . . . = . . : fe80::5efe:192.168.0.2%2
        Default Gateway . . . . . . . = . . :
        DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . = . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1
            &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;       fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1
            &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;       fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1
        NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . = . . : Disabled 

----- Original Message ----- =

From: Dan Reeder =

Sent: = Monday, March 10, = 2003 9:20 = AM

Subject: Re: = [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for = Beta

 

Any ideas on how long it takes for them to permit you = to join the peer to peer update program?

 

Dan

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent: = Friday, March 07, = 2003 2:27 = PM

Subject: [6bone] = Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta

 

Hi, you may have seen one of the articles published = last week about a new beta release of an application called Threedegrees that Microsoft released for the young “NetGen” market.  In = case you didn’t hear about this or haven’t had time to read about the application I wanted to be sure you knew that it is an IPv6-only = application.  It is available for beta on www.threedegrees.com and I = encourage you all to check it out.

 

You can also read more about the underlying peer to = peer and IPv6 technologies we are shipping with Threedegrees at: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/feb03/02-26sdk= announcespr.asp.

 

If you have any questions or comments please let me = know.

Thanks

Chris Mitchell

Microsoft – Windows Networking – = IPv6

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2E728.C7C83E68-- --------------InterScan_NT_MIME_Boundary-- From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Tue Mar 11 12:11:49 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:11:49 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Microsoft has released IPv6-only application for Beta References: <001101c2e71a$064d2440$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: > Hi Joroen, it's J_e_roen mind you ;) French people tend to write Jerome Whoops , Hi Jeroen , thanks for the swift reply. And apologies everyone for another long mail - and for getting off track re subject line. (I do intend to use it honest) MS Autoconfig knows about RFC1918 (private address space, see: eg http://1918.rfc.wiretrip.org or type rfc1918 in google) and thus should not use that space for 6to4 tunnels. Also note that you are quite probably running ICS on your machine, at least that is what the "Network Bridge (Network Bridge)" could indicate. But indeed it's your own LAN and not the public Inet. Thanks for that, yes I have ICS , will have a router in May which will make things easier. (Recommendations anyone on what Router to get?) > How did you work this out. I thought part of the address was > obtained from the MAC layer? 2002:9089:fc85::9089:fc85 ^ ^^^^^^^^^ | +---------------- Your public IPv4 address (*1) +------------------------- 2002::/16 == 6to4 space *1 = 0x90 = 144 0x89 = 137 0xfc = 252 0x85 = 133 ----> 144.137.252.133 Thanks for the reminder. OrgName: Telstra NetRange: 144.137.0.0 - 144.137.255.255 CIDR: 144.137.0.0/16 NetName: TELECOMAU7 On the internet nobody is anonymous, or some other movie quote ;) Your right there, incidentally I received a reply from Telstra research and 'Geoff Huston' is on the case apparently. No more details so need to track him down. >Show traceroutes. Also when using a 6to4 relay in the US when >you are down under you should not expect good latencies. See further down for traceroutes on the 3 sixxs website addys you gave me. > I thought I had a tunnel? Using TILAB's client software I > have an address registered until 2008. (2038 apparently) That's not visible in your config output. Detailed output:- Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : madaboutipv6 Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . : Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : Yes WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No DNS Suffix Search List. . . . . . : vic.bigpond.net.au Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 5: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Efficient Networks Enternet P.P.P.o. E Adapter Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 44-45-53-54-77-77 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 144.137.251.112 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::4645:53ff:fe54:7777%4 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 144.137.251.112 DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 1.1.1.1 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 61.9.128.16 61.9.128.13 fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Tuesday, 11 March 2003 12:43:14 AM Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Tuesday, 19 January 2038 11:14:07 AM Ethernet adapter Network Bridge (Network Bridge): Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : MAC Bridge Miniport Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 02-40-D0-2A-AF-71 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1 Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:f0a0:fdee:9102:f0a3 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:c0a8:1:5:40:d0ff:fe2a:af71 IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::40:d0ff:fe2a:af71%5 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 Tunnel adapter 6to4 Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : 6to4 Tunneling Pseudo-Interface Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 90-89-FB-70 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 2002:9089:fb70::9089:fb70 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 2002:836b:213c:1:e0:8f08:f020:8 2001:708:0:1::624 DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled Tunnel adapter Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 90-89-FB-70 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::5efe:144.137.251.112%2 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled Tunnel adapter Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : C0-A8-00-01 Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::5efe:192.168.0.1%2 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::2%1 fec0:0:0:ffff::3%1 NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled I don't want the job doing for me, but where do I look to rectify wrong configuration(s) >I think that the Australian people should lobby at the current TLA >holders for a good working 6to4 or a TB. Call them up if needed >and put some pressure on them. That's a good idea, maybe I need to look at the ipv6-au forum. Who else is here from AU , maybe a dedicated list is needed to help persuasion techniques.? Anyone want a list compiling or is there one already.? http://www.sixxs.net is IPv4 and IPv6 reachable. http://www.ipv4.sixxs.net is IPv4 only (as it got only a A address :) http://www.ipv6.sixxs.net is IPv6 only (as it got only a AAAA address :) Ok tracert6 on sixxs.net fails miserably at the first hop as does ipv6.sixxs.net , what am I missing? ** STOP PRESS ** Skip that last comment , it's working fine today and I haven't done a damn thing! So now I can get all all three versions of your site no problems. Tracing route to noc.sixxs.net [3ffe:4007:1:1:210:dcff:fe20:7c7c] from 2002:9089:fb70::9089:fb70 over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 297 ms 300 ms 300 ms 2002:836b:213c:1:e0:8f08:f020:8 2 460 ms 460 ms 460 ms 2001:7f8:1::a500:8954:1 3 460 ms 581 ms 460 ms 2001:7f8:1::a501:2871:1 4 460 ms 460 ms 471 ms 2001:838:0:10::2 5 470 ms 480 ms 470 ms noc.sixxs.net [3ffe:4007:1:1:210:dcff:fe20:7c7c] Trace complete. EUI-64 scope local Interface identifier 0000:0000:9089:fb70 6to4 IPv4 address 144.137.251.112 Registry of 6to4 IPv4 address ARIN IPv6 address 2002:9089:fb70:0000:0000:0000:9089:fb70 Site Level Aggregator (subnet) 0000 Address type unicast,6to4,global-unicast (taken from ipv6calc) > Speaking of which , is there a native IPv6 DNS root server yet? >Yes, there is a testbed. Bill Manning knows all about it ;) Good to know, I got more info from http://www.isi.edu/~bmanning/v6DNS.html Thanks for your time Jéroen :0)) --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003 From bob@thefinks.com Tue Mar 11 16:00:53 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:00:53 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone pTLA 3FFE:4016::/32 allocated to NECTEC-TH Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030311075641.0283f998@mail.addr.com> NECTEC-TH has been allocated pTLA 3FFE:4016::/32 having finished its 2-week review period. Note that it will take a short while for their pTLA inet6num entry to appear in the 6bone registry as they have to create it themselves. However, their registration is listed on: [To create a reverse DNS registration for pTLAs, please send the prefix allocated above, and a list of at least two authoritative nameservers, to hostmaster@ep.net.] Thanks, Bob From Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM Tue Mar 11 17:38:35 2003 From: Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM (Lo Galbo Emanuele) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:38:35 +0100 Subject: [6bone] which kind of tool for monitoring bandwhich Message-ID: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD2609C@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> HI all I am testing an Ipv6 multicast test plant and I need to test band-usage.Could you suggest me a friendly tool doing that? Thank you.Best Regards ==================================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you ==================================================================== From jeroen@unfix.org Tue Mar 11 19:20:15 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:20:15 +0100 Subject: [6bone] which kind of tool for monitoring bandwhich In-Reply-To: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD2609C@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> Message-ID: <002401c2e803$3f399740$210d640a@unfix.org> Galbo Emanuele wrote: > HI all I am testing an Ipv6 multicast test plant and I need > to test band-usage.Could you suggest me a friendly tool doing that? > Thank you.Best Regards IPerf: www.google.com -> iperf http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/ > ==================================================================== > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons > above and may contain confidential information. If you have received > the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof > is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete > the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by > replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you > ==================================================================== Eek, public mailinglists can't be confidential, you really must be kidding. Greets, Jeroen From basit@basit.cc Wed Mar 12 04:31:48 2003 From: basit@basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:31:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] which kind of tool for monitoring bandwhich In-Reply-To: <002401c2e803$3f399740$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <002401c2e803$3f399740$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: i doubt iperf does support multicast ? On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Galbo Emanuele wrote: > > > HI all I am testing an Ipv6 multicast test plant and I need > > to test band-usage.Could you suggest me a friendly tool doing that? > > Thank you.Best Regards > > IPerf: > > www.google.com -> iperf > > http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/ > > > ==================================================================== > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons > > above and may contain confidential information. If you have received > > the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof > > is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete > > the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by > > replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you > > ==================================================================== > > Eek, public mailinglists can't be confidential, you really must be > kidding. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From yjchui@cht.com.tw Wed Mar 12 07:15:02 2003 From: yjchui@cht.com.tw (yjchui) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:15:02 +0800 Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host Message-ID: <000a01c2e867$19894fe0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C2E8AA.279E3800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello: Does anybody know that how to specify IPv6 DNS server on a IPv6-only = host? (solaris/windows) I have tried to edit /etc/resolv.conf on solaris 8 with adding one = line: "nameserver 3ffe:3600:8::1" But it seems not work! Is it possible to specify an IPv6 DNS server on windows system? (XP, = 2000 or .Net) Thanks Yann-Ju Chu E-mail: yjchui@cht.com.tw ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C2E8AA.279E3800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello:
    Does = anybody know that how to=20 specify IPv6 DNS server on a IPv6-only host? = (solaris/windows)
    I have = tried to edit=20 /etc/resolv.conf on solaris 8 with adding one line:  "nameserver=20 3ffe:3600:8::1"
    But it = seems not=20 work!
 
    Is it = possible to specify an IPv6=20 DNS server on windows system? (XP, 2000 or .Net)
 
Thanks
 
Yann-Ju Chu
E-mail: yjchui@cht.com.tw
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C2E8AA.279E3800-- From yjchui@cht.com.tw Wed Mar 12 08:08:50 2003 From: yjchui@cht.com.tw (yjchui) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:08:50 +0800 Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host Message-ID: <000d01c2e86e$9daf8e90$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C2E8B1.ABC22CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello: Does anybody know that how to specify IPv6 DNS server on a IPv6-only = host? (solaris/windows) I have tried to edit /etc/resolv.conf on solaris 8 with adding one = line: "nameserver 3ffe:3600:8::1" But it seems not work! Is it possible to specify an IPv6 DNS server on windows system? (XP, = 2000 or .Net) Thanks Yann-Ju Chu E-mail: yjchui@cht.com.tw ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C2E8B1.ABC22CC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 

Hello:
    Does = anybody know that how to=20 specify IPv6 DNS server on a IPv6-only host? = (solaris/windows)
    I have = tried to edit=20 /etc/resolv.conf on solaris 8 with adding one line:  "nameserver=20 3ffe:3600:8::1"
    But it = seems not=20 work!
 
    Is it = possible to specify an IPv6=20 DNS server on windows system? (XP, 2000 or .Net)
 
Thanks
 
Yann-Ju Chu
E-mail: yjchui@cht.com.tw
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C2E8B1.ABC22CC0-- From basit@basit.cc Wed Mar 12 10:33:06 2003 From: basit@basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:33:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] Careers in IPv6. Message-ID: Hey, Is there any mailing list / job board for searching IPv6 related jobs? I beleive creating such a list/board will help in IPv6 growth. If there will be jobs in this area, more people will be working on it, its the same thing as cisco certifications increased the chance to get a job so cisco products become more popular than any other in a short period of time. Currently, it seems that IPv6 is only mainly studied by students/researchers. When these students finish the degree, there are minor chances that they will still be able work on it. They work according to their job requirements. If there will be jobs in IPv6, they will be more than willing to utilize the previous experience. The most common question asked, if you tell someone about IPv6 is 'when do you think, IPv6 will be deployed globally?', We usually reply 'sir, may be in next 8-10 years', so does it means that IPv6 releated jobs will be available after 8-10 years when IPv6 becomes common in use? -- basit From gert@space.net Wed Mar 12 13:58:18 2003 From: gert@space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:58:18 +0100 Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host In-Reply-To: <000a01c2e867$19894fe0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei>; from yjchui@cht.com.tw on Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:15:02PM +0800 References: <000a01c2e867$19894fe0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> Message-ID: <20030312145818.T15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:15:02PM +0800, yjchui wrote: > Does anybody know that how to specify IPv6 DNS server on a IPv6-only host? (solaris/windows) > I have tried to edit /etc/resolv.conf on solaris 8 with adding one line: "nameserver 3ffe:3600:8::1" > But it seems not work! For Linux, this works nicely. My office PC has exactly this in its resolv.conf - "nameserver 2001:608::2". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 57285 (57021) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From remcovz@xs4all.nl Wed Mar 12 14:20:53 2003 From: remcovz@xs4all.nl (Remco van Zuijlen) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:20:53 +0100 Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host In-Reply-To: <000a01c2e867$19894fe0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> References: <000a01c2e867$19894fe0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> Message-ID: <20030312142053.GD1529@xs4all.nl> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:15:02PM +0800, yjchui wrote: > Hello: > Does anybody know that how to specify IPv6 DNS server on a IPv6-only > host? (solaris/windows) I have tried to edit /etc/resolv.conf on > solaris 8 with adding one line: "nameserver 3ffe:3600:8::1" But it > seems not work! what if you try with square brackets? so like: nameserver [3ffe:3600:8::1] > Is it possible to specify an IPv6 DNS server on windows system? (XP, > 2000 or .Net) Don't know :) probably not, or via the ipv6 tool in dos. Remco -- Remco van Zuijlen Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! From sp@iphh.net Wed Mar 12 14:30:53 2003 From: sp@iphh.net (Sascha E. Pollok) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:30:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host In-Reply-To: <20030312142053.GD1529@xs4all.nl> Message-ID: > > Does anybody know that how to specify IPv6 DNS server on a IPv6-only > > host? (solaris/windows) I have tried to edit /etc/resolv.conf on > > solaris 8 with adding one line: "nameserver 3ffe:3600:8::1" But it > > seems not work! > > > what if you try with square brackets? so like: > > nameserver [3ffe:3600:8::1] > > > Is it possible to specify an IPv6 DNS server on windows system? (XP, > > 2000 or .Net) > > Don't know :) probably not, or via the ipv6 tool in dos. Did you configure /etc/nsswitch.conf to query for "6" hosts? Regards Sascha From pim@ipng.nl Wed Mar 12 14:30:08 2003 From: pim@ipng.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:30:08 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Careers in IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030312143008.GA9450@bfib.colo.bit.nl> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:33:06AM +0000, Abdul Basit wrote: | Hey, | | Is there any mailing list / job board for searching | IPv6 related jobs? I beleive creating such a list/board | will help in IPv6 growth. I think the IPv6 'jobs' are non-existant. There will be a demand for engineers which can deploy this protocol, just as any other (ATM, MPLS, IPv4, PPPoX). | The most common question asked, if you tell someone about IPv6 is 'when | do you think, IPv6 will be deployed globally?', We usually reply 'sir, may | be in next 8-10 years', so does it means that IPv6 releated jobs will be | available after 8-10 years when IPv6 becomes common in use? In my job, I am confronted with IPv6 on a regular (allmost daily) base, because the ISP I work for offers this type of connectivityto our customers. groet, Pim -- ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment ----------------------------------------------- From pekkas@netcore.fi Wed Mar 12 14:53:14 2003 From: pekkas@netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:53:14 +0200 (EET) Subject: [6bone] which kind of tool for monitoring bandwhich In-Reply-To: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD2609C@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Lo Galbo Emanuele wrote: > HI all I am testing an Ipv6 multicast test plant and I need to test > band-usage.Could you suggest me a friendly tool doing that? Thank ttcp. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From 9725415@student.ul.ie Wed Mar 12 15:48:44 2003 From: 9725415@student.ul.ie (Darragh Kennedy) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:48:44 +0000 Subject: [6bone] came across this article any opinions?? Message-ID: <3106F19CD154D34A818258EBC4147D19E5DFB8@gabriel.ul.ie> I'll stick with IPv4 for now, thank you By CHUCK YOKE Network World, 03/13/00 I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm over 40 and the brain cells are dying, but there are many things happening today in the world of technology that I just don't understand. Take IPv6, for example. I just don't get it. Why in the world would I be interested in investing the time, money and effort it is going to take to convert my IPv4 networks to IPv6? At one time I was very interested in IPv6. It was going to solve many of my network problems. The extended address space would spare me from having to create and maintain a variable-length, bit-level subnet addressing scheme. The built-in authentication and security would let me sleep better at night, knowing that only secure and authenticated packets were entering my networks. The quality of service (QoS) would enable me to fully integrate my voice and data over IP. But then a crisis happened - I ran out of time. I needed IPv6 two years ago, and it wasn't there. And I couldn't wait any longer. So I did what everyone else in the world was doing: I integrated a variety of IPv4-based products and services into my network. My address needs were met by migrating my network to an RFC 1918-compliant unregistered IP address. I now have IP addresses galore and can use a very simplistic subnet-masking scheme to segment and identify my networks by building and floor. My network technicians can tell from the second and third octet exactly where a device is located. For security, I chose a firewall with features that, when combined with the appropriate access control lists, ensure the integrity of both incoming and outgoing transmissions. I implemented a combination of Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service and Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol to ensure that local, Internet-based and remote dial-in connections are granted only to authenticated users with the appropriate access levels. And for encrypting sensitive documents and files, I implemented PGP - inexpensive, easy and best of all, it works! My QoS needs were met by a combination of bigger pipes and faster equipment. 100Base-T and 1000Base-T Ethernet give me more than enough bandwidth, and the advances in Application Specific Integrated Circuit technology ensure that packet serialization delay is kept to a minimum. For the more stringent QoS I may need in the coming years, I have a plethora of IPv4-based choices, including policy-based networking, Differentiated Services, TCP rate shaping and the old standby, ATM. So here I am, manager of an IPv4-based network that works fine, is addressed in a logical and easy-to-maintain manner, is secure, and integrates my voice and data. I just don't see any need to convert my functional IPv4 network to IPv6. From andree@bos.nl Wed Mar 12 15:42:28 2003 From: andree@bos.nl (Andree Toonk) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:42:28 +0100 Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host References: <000d01c2e86e$9daf8e90$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> Message-ID: <027e01c2e8ad$fd9e2020$9700000a@dre> >----- Original Message ----- >From: yjchui >To: 6bone@ISI.EDU >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:08 AM >Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host > >Hello: > Does anybody know that how to specify IPv6 DNS server on a IPv6-only host? (solaris/windows) > I have tried to edit /etc/resolv.conf on solaris 8 with adding one line: "nameserver 3ffe:3600:8::1" > But it seems not work! Hello yjchui , what do you have in your " /etc/nsswitch.conf" ? You have to specify that it should use dns: the following line should be in that file: ipnodes: files dns (by default it only has files) for ipv4 you´ve specified the following hosts: files dns (ipnodes is the same as hosts is in ipv4) the host file for ipv6 is /etc/inet/ipnodes Goodluck, -Andree From 6bone@megabot.nl Wed Mar 12 15:51:44 2003 From: 6bone@megabot.nl (Mendel Mobach) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:51:44 +0100 Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host In-Reply-To: <000a01c2e867$19894fe0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> References: <000a01c2e867$19894fe0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> Message-ID: <200303121651.44290.6bone@megabot.nl> On Wednesday 12 March 2003 08:15, yjchui wrote: > Hello: > Does anybody know that how to specify IPv6 DNS server on a IPv6-only > host? (solaris/windows) I have tried to edit /etc/resolv.conf on solaris 8 > with adding one line: "nameserver 3ffe:3600:8::1" But it seems not work! I tested very much together with some other people but it looks that there is no real ipv6 support in the resolver libs. It supports looking up AAAA records and some more, but no native ipv6 nameserver support. At my box I installed a bind server and I just use: nameserver 127.0.0.1 (bind supports ipv6). Kind Regards, Mendel Mobach -- Mendel Mobach aka BugBlue - Mendel.Mobach@cwi.nl 4:48pm up 6:20, 9 users, load average: 1.23, 0.52, 0.48 A plumber is needed, the network drain is clogged From tbegin@tf1.fr Wed Mar 12 16:12:04 2003 From: tbegin@tf1.fr (BEGIN, Thomas) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:12:04 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Security over IPv6 networks Message-ID: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> Hello, Security... that's a core problem for a lot of engineers ! With IPv4, a lot of enterprises networks were set up with private addresses (eg 10.x.x.x ). That implies that computers inside the network are unreachable from outside (eg Internet). Since IPv6 offers a large scale of addresses, I've heard that companies could address their machines with global unicast addresses (public addresses) and also benefit fully from IPsec and peer to peer applications. That's nice and it is said that it should improve security (IPsec totally used from sender to receiver). But in the other hand, isn't it dangerous to address machines with global unicast address and thus make them reachable directly from anywhere and by anybody... Besides NAT is often acknowledged as a good shield to secure networks. Then is it really possible to protect IPv6 networks (with global unicast addresses) as safe as Ipv4 networks using NAT ? I realize this is a big topic and may be there is no easy response but getting a high performance security is a fundamental factor for the deployement of IPv6. But if you have any idea (know enterprises that use public addresses for their network) please let me know ... -Thomas PS: using site local addresses inside IPv6 networks doesn't solve the problem ... ;-)) From chuck+6bone@snew.com Wed Mar 12 17:50:48 2003 From: chuck+6bone@snew.com (Chuck Yerkes) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:50:48 -0500 Subject: [6bone] Security over IPv6 networks In-Reply-To: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> References: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> Message-ID: <20030312175048.GC24120@snew.com> NAT is not security. Recent exploits have further hammered this home, but it's never been about security. It's been about dealing with 8 IP addresses and 200 machines. Can it help security some? Sure. I made by friend with Windows and DSL get a NAT box. Badly written client applications can easily be tricked into downloading bad code eliciting buffer over flow or, for the really bad programs like Outlook and IE, running code from strangers. All through NAT. Is NAT a firewall? Only for the naive. Cheswick and Bellovin have a second edition of their lovely book on firewalls and internet security - the first book on the topic (but certainly not the first paper or article). IPv6 offers more options, not fewer. I've run, since the 80's, networks with routable addresses on them. They all go through 1 (or more) choke points. We built firewalls in the early 90s. These were boxes that ran proxies (small, well studied programs that did the actual connection to the net and protected poorly written programs). We routed through screend and later IPFilter (pf, ipfw and ipchains are similar tools) certain protocols in. > Then is it really possible to protect IPv6 networks (with global > unicast addresses) as safe as Ipv4 networks using NAT ? It is as possible to protect IPv6 networks as it is to protect IPv4 networks. Bastion firewalls and network security principles don't change with IPv6. IP version agnostic, IPSec actually may REDUCE security in some cases, just like ssh tunnelling can be the firewall admins nightmare. An IPSec connection from a poorly patched machine to a "bad" machine (or a machine that relays dangerous information) means that the firewall that might be in between cannot "see" the bad data being sent in. Scanning programs see an encrypted stream, not an attack that they may be able to halt. Quoting BEGIN, Thomas (tbegin@tf1.fr): > Security... that's a core problem for a lot of engineers ! > > With IPv4, a lot of enterprises networks were set up with private addresses (e g 10.x.x.x ). That implies that computers inside the network are unreachable fro m outside (eg Internet). > > Since IPv6 offers a large scale of addresses, I've heard that companies could address their machines with global unicast addresses (public addresses) and also benefit fully from IPsec and peer to peer applications. > That's nice and it is said that it should improve security (IPsec totally used from sender to receiver). > But in the other hand, isn't it dangerous to address machines with global unic ast address and thus make them reachable directly from anywhere and by anybody.. . Besides NAT is often acknowledged as a good shield to secure networks. > > Then is it really possible to protect IPv6 networks (with global unicast addre sses) as safe as Ipv4 networks using NAT ? > > I realize this is a big topic and may be there is no easy response but getting a high performance security is a fundamental factor for the deployement of IPv6 . > > But if you have any idea (know enterprises that use public addresses for their network) please let me know ... > > PS: using site local addresses inside IPv6 networks doesn't solve the problem ... ;-)) From robert@digi-data.com Wed Mar 12 18:31:24 2003 From: robert@digi-data.com (Robert Honore) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:31:24 -0400 Subject: [6bone] came across this article any opinions?? References: <3106F19CD154D34A818258EBC4147D19E5DFB8@gabriel.ul.ie> Message-ID: <3E6F7CFC.A03F5EDC@digi-data.com> Dear Darragh Kennedy, That Network World commentator must have just been venting his or her frustration with the slow arrival of universal IPv6 application support and connectivity. We shall see below. Darragh Kennedy wrote: > > I'll stick with IPv4 for now, thank you > By CHUCK YOKE > Network World, 03/13/00 > I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm over 40 and the brain cells are > dying, but there are many things happening today in the world of technology > that I just don't understand. > Take IPv6, for example. I just don't get it. Why in the world would I be > interested in investing the time, money and effort it is going to take to > convert my IPv4 networks to IPv6? Maybe one should not just go and "convert your IPv4 networks to IPv6". IPv6 was designed from the outset to live side-by-side with IPv4 for as long as it takes the customer to decide that an exclusive IPv6 network is the one that that customer wants to operate. No "forklift conversion" is either necessary or desirable. > At one time I was very interested in IPv6. It was going to solve many of my > network problems. The extended address space would spare me from having to > create and maintain a variable-length, bit-level subnet addressing scheme. With IPv6 one would still be able to implement a variable-length, bit-level subnet addressing scheme. Only now with IPv6 it is no longer an absolute necessity. > The built-in authentication and security would let me sleep better at night, > knowing that only secure and authenticated packets were entering my > networks. The quality of service (QoS) would enable me to fully integrate my > voice and data over IP. All of the same network and engineering problems that existed with IPv4 that IPv6 were to address still exist. While the commentator's thinking and subsequent actions are understandable, it is not necessarily true that those were his only options to act. > But then a crisis happened - I ran out of time. I needed IPv6 two years ago, > and it wasn't there. And I couldn't wait any longer. So I did what everyone > else in the world was doing: I integrated a variety of IPv4-based products > and services into my network. The main things that slow the universal adoption of IPv6 are the following. * Lack of availability of IPv6 service from many ISPs around the world. * Application support is nowhere near where it should be as yet. Both of these things are, in a way, chicken-and-egg problems. You see, the ISPs and application providers feel they should not invest in building IPv6 support without the requisite customer demand, while the customers feel that they cannot adopt IPv6 without the requisite availability of IPv6 aware applications and IPv6 capability. It is not that it is very hard to do either, for if the application providers adhere to the new Sockets specification in writing their applications, it is possible to deliver IPv6 ready applications without a large amount of major modifications to the existing code base. In the case of the ISPs, I am reasonably sure that wherever the ISPs have implemented some level of IPv6 connectivity, there have been customers (possibly early adopters admittedly) who were only too eager to jump in whole-heartedly. > My address needs were met by migrating my network to an RFC 1918-compliant > unregistered IP address. My question to the commentator in response to the above statement would be "Are you really comfortable with what you have implemented as a solution, or are you just living with it because you do not really imagine something better could be available?" > I now have IP addresses galore and can use a very > simplistic subnet-masking scheme to segment and identify my networks by > building and floor. My network technicians can tell from the second and > third octet exactly where a device is located. It is still possible to do this with IPv6, probably too much so, since the currently proposed addressing schemes allow you to allocate as many as 64 bits of address to the node, and the site itself can get as many as 16 of the remaining bits as site identifier bits. > For security, I chose a firewall with features that, when combined with the > appropriate access control lists, ensure the integrity of both incoming and > outgoing transmissions. IPv6 was never intended to eliminate the need for firewalls, though it would probably radically change the way firewalls are built, deployed and used. IPv6 was created primarily to deal with the availability of IP addresses issue, while still maintaining the end-to-end model that originally motivated the creation of IPv4, and which IPv4 can no longer maintain, especially with the use of RFC1918 addresses and NAT. Firewalls can never maintain the integrity of both incoming and outgoing transmissions. That is the job of the end-nodes. All that a firewall can do (and some would argue that they do not do that too well) is to ensure that the traffic that are forwarded through the firewall are in some loose compliance with some usually poorly specified policy. > I implemented a combination of Remote Authentication > Dial-In User Service and Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol to > ensure that local, Internet-based and remote dial-in connections are granted > only to authenticated users with the appropriate access levels. And for > encrypting sensitive documents and files, I implemented PGP - inexpensive, > easy and best of all, it works! IPv6, while it can implement all of these things itself, was never meant (at least in my view) to eliminate or replace these things. It can significantly augment them, though. > My QoS needs were met by a combination of bigger pipes and faster equipment. > 100Base-T and 1000Base-T Ethernet give me more than enough bandwidth, and > the advances in Application Specific Integrated Circuit technology ensure > that packet serialization delay is kept to a minimum. For the more stringent > QoS I may need in the coming years, I have a plethora of IPv4-based choices, > including policy-based networking, Differentiated Services, TCP rate shaping > and the old standby, ATM. Admittedly, IPv6 has come up short (again in my view) in this respect. Pending the completion of the standard specification of the treatment of the IPv6 flow-label field and the integration of that with the networking hardware, we might never have true QOS built into IPv6 if the flow-label thing is the only way it can be done (again, just my opinion). > So here I am, manager of an IPv4-based network that works fine, is addressed > in a logical and easy-to-maintain manner, is secure, and integrates my voice > and data. I just don't see any need to convert my functional IPv4 network to > IPv6. There probably really is no need for you to convert your IPv4 network to IPv6. Although, with your usage of RFC1918 addressing and NAT, you are on a rapid collision course with the end-to-end problem. Yours sincerely, Robert Honore. From '6bone@mailman.isi.edu'" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu Wed Mar 12 19:56:37 2003 From: '6bone@mailman.isi.edu'" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu (Chuck Yerkes) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:56:37 -0500 Subject: [6bone] came across this article any opinions?? In-Reply-To: <3106F19CD154D34A818258EBC4147D19E5DFB8@gabriel.ul.ie> References: <3106F19CD154D34A818258EBC4147D19E5DFB8@gabriel.ul.ie> Message-ID: <20030312195637.GD24120@snew.com> Wow! My opinion is that in 2000 (03/13/00), that this was a reasonable view. IPv6 and indeed the 6bone wasn't "there." I had early IPv6 support in BSD, none in vendor supplied Unix. Cisco was barely talking about it. Quoting Darragh Kennedy (9725415@student.ul.ie): > I'll stick with IPv4 for now, thank you > By CHUCK YOKE > Network World, 03/13/00 > I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm over 40 and the brain cells are > dying, but there are many things happening today in the world of technology > that I just don't understand. > Take IPv6, for example. I just don't get it. Why in the world would I be > interested in investing the time, money and effort it is going to take to > convert my IPv4 networks to IPv6? From chuck+6bone@snew.com Wed Mar 12 20:07:13 2003 From: chuck+6bone@snew.com (Chuck Yerkes) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:07:13 -0500 Subject: [6bone] (long) came across this article any opinions?? Message-ID: <20030312200713.GE24120@snew.com> > I'll stick with IPv4 for now, thank you > By CHUCK YOKE > Network World, 03/13/00 had this been written THIS week, not three years ago, this would be my reply (and yes, I wrote this before catching that "00" among all the 3s). I'm Bcc mr yoke out of basic courtesy and perhaps a chance for him to revisit the issue some time. We're really running out of IPv4; china is active (if mainly spam), the net's growth hasn't slowed in absolute numbers. Posted for opinion mongering on the 6bone mail list, I'll not avoid the temptation... ------------------------------------------ Network World... Articles for managers of people running Microsoft networks. They often have a fear of alternatives and look for rationalizations and Network World helps them keep that justified. If it's not from MS, it should be questioned deeply. (I wish their "web" site actually contained more working HTML. I'm sure it's lovely on IE, but that does not a web site make. Microsoft sites are tiresome.) They seem to reprint Microsoft Press releases and lost huge credibility with me when they described Exchange as a cost competitor to a Unix box running POP with Eudora (or $FestivalOfOptions). Ever try to not use OutBreak with your Exchange server? My peer hated our chosen ZMail (our standard POP client), so we gave him another of 30 clients. No pain to our staff at all). I've moved clients from 30 high maintainance (7-8 admins) boxes running Exchange and the support machines it needs to a 4CPU box running IMAP with a front end allowing a secretary to add users and 1/2 of an admin to run the machine. Oh, it was Unix, so not to be trusted. (in the meantime, those 7 admins are doing other stuff to make their network a better place, not wasting their time banging their heads against the cabinets and the server gets rebooted every 6-8 months as a matter of course). > I'll stick with IPv4 for now, thank you > By CHUCK YOKE > Network World, 03/13/00 > I don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm over 40 and the brain cells > are dying, but there are many things happening today in the world > of technology that I just don't understand. > > Take IPv6, for example. I just don't get it. Why in the world > would I be interested in investing the time, money and effort it > is going to take to convert my IPv4 networks to IPv6? > > At one time I was very interested in IPv6. It was going to solve > many of my network problems. The extended address space would > spare me from having to create and maintain a variable-length, > bit-level subnet addressing scheme. The built-in authentication > and security would let me sleep better at night, knowing that only > secure and authenticated packets were entering my networks. The > quality of service (QoS) would enable me to fully integrate my > voice and data over IP. > > But then a crisis happened - I ran out of time. I needed IPv6 two > years ago, and it wasn't there. And I couldn't wait any longer. > So I did what everyone else in the world was doing: I integrated > a variety of IPv4-based products and services into my network. Unlike many Network World managers who lived in proprietary networks until it was clear that they didn't really scale or interoperate, many of my peers had been using IPv4 based products and services in our networks throughout the 80s. I suspect Mr Yoke's peers or readers were the ones who wondered what those "@" and "!" things in my business cards' email address meant in 1990. "Oh, we have email too!", they'd exclaim. [Yes, but you haven't been tossing mail around from your network through random networks to its destination at a place you have no direct relationship with. You can send mail to your cubicle neighbor] I suspect Mr Yoke's readers were the ones who said, "So we could use this 'internet' stuff *inside* our networks? Golly. We'll call it the 'Intranet'." No, we'll call it "the network". It's inter- when there's more than one. > My address needs were met by migrating my network to an RFC > 1918-compliant unregistered IP address. it would appear, Mr Yoke hasn't gone through merging networks that both use the same RFC1918 networks. (I now tend towards a personally owned, unrouted Class C to avoid that). Managing two NAT boxes facing each other while you redo lots of machines and configurations that use addresses rather than names is an experience to be avoided. I also recall an article where he suggest using other addresses like 5/8 (5.0.0.0)and 7/8. The CEO of a client once pulled me aside and asked why, every time he browsed to his alma mater, he got a web page on some local Oracle server we'd setup to show statuses. I had to explain that his network guys had just made up addresses and it turned out that the oracle server had the same address as his school's web server. And no, we can't fix it quite yet. Grabbing address is bad. You don't know if China might get 5. > I now have IP addresses galore and can use a very simplistic > subnet-masking scheme to segment and identify my networks by > building and floor. My network technicians can tell from the second > and third octet exactly where a device is located. I can look at my IPv6 network addresses and see exactly where the device is. NAT is often unacceptable. Working at places with upwards of 80 legit Class Bs and 300 Class Cs, secured connections needed to come into a large variety of systems making NAT an option with close to zero managability. With several connections to the Internet, from several locations along with connections to partners with whom we exchanged realtime data, you don't even want to ponder NAT. Ever try to get 80 Class B's after 1994? Me neither. Mr Yoke is clearly American. America owns 75% of the address space. I have a former boss who has an entire class B for his network of 8 machines (down from our company's 300 machines in 4 locations at one time that got us the Class B in 1991). Apple has a Class A that, I imagine, isn't very densely populated given nearly 17 MILLION addresses and, what? 3000 employees. Japan has led research in IPv6 with Europe closely behind. We don't have the address space in IPv4 to cover most of the still unwired Asian and African countries. India and Africa are rapidly wiring; China is joining the information age in fits and starts. NAT has slowed the sucking up of address space, but we're rapidly running out. I'll enjoy his panic when he realized that his need for new addresses for, say, another firewall is met with: "Oh, yeah, we're almost out so we charge several thousand per year for 8 addresses." Or even "Nope, all out. Try later." That's gonna be a fun day. I've being deploying IPv6 in testing mode for a couple years. In that time, Sun has come out with solid IPv6 in Solaris 8 (and now 9). IBM's AIX, SGI's Irix, all the BSDs, Linux all have good IPv6 implementations (many thanks to work by the KAME institute in Japan). Cisco's IOS now has IPv6 support, which was critical. This has changed since the article in spring of 2000. Even MacOS X and Microsoft have IPv6! Given Microsoft's aversion to innovation, this must mean that IPv6 is becoming solid and ready for mainstream. I await their press release announcing their invention of it. (I expect their subtle alteration of IPv6 for the own ends.) > For security, I chose a firewall with features that, when combined > with the appropriate access control lists, ensure the integrity > of both incoming and outgoing transmissions. I implemented a > combination of Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service and > Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol to ensure that local, > Internet-based and remote dial-in connections are granted only to > authenticated users with the appropriate access levels. And for > encrypting sensitive documents and files, I implemented PGP - > inexpensive, easy and best of all, it works! I fail to see what this has to do with either IPv6 or IPv4. I suppose PGP is cute if you want to handle key management and a lack of infrastruture. I prefer PKI using SSL with public keys kept in LDAP directories. But neither has anything to do with the network layer - it's all application layer. As I drive my downtown with a PDA (Zaurus) running 802.11b, I find several otherwise "secure networks" with wireless APs running wide open behind their firewalls. The firewalls are dutifully watching the doors. That PC on the ethernet with the wireless left on is holding open the windows for those who avoid front doors. Don't drop that basket, you'll need those eggs. > My QoS needs were met by a combination of bigger pipes and faster > equipment. 100Base-T and 1000Base-T Ethernet give me more than > enough bandwidth, and the advances in Application Specific Integrated > Circuit technology ensure that packet serialization delay is kept > to a minimum. For the more stringent QoS I may need in the coming > years, I have a plethora of IPv4-based choices, including policy-based > networking, Differentiated Services, TCP rate shaping and the old > standby, ATM. I do like "My QoS needs were met by bigger pipes..." Well yeah. I'd like to have Internet2 connections to my work place - multi-gigabit to Europe and around the country would be neat. It would avoid problems of browser traffic slowing down other, more important traffic. But offering bigger pipes as a "solution" is like saying: "I needed to better organize my closet, but instead moved into a place with a couple extra rooms so i keep my clothes piled in there." The hacks of bandwidth management boxes spewing "ICMP Source Quench" packets to allow schools and businesses to have SOME non-Web traffic reach them are Band-Aids (adding MORE boxes and more management load) until true QOS solutions are available. Pipes fill. I'm glad Gigabit is "more than enough bandwidth" for Mr Yoke. On a LAN, it often may be, I'm looking forward to actually getting 10Gb nets available in 2003. My connections to the Internet tend to be smaller than that, even after 3 years. QoS is still needed. > So here I am, manager of an IPv4-based network that works fine, > is addressed in a logical and easy-to-maintain manner, is secure, > and integrates my voice and data. I just don't see any need to > convert my functional IPv4 network to IPv6. A friend asked, in 2000: Why would I ever need IPv6? My offered answer was "Hi, this is $CellPhone Company, we'd like 64 Class A networks, please" He offered that Cell phones don't need IP addresses, they are just phones. I recalled this as I browsed the web for directions on my phone. I recalled it as I attached it to my Mac in the the (moving) car and got a pretty fast connection to get my mail which had the address so I could use a map to get directions. My bad habits of forgetting to bring addresses is mitigated by IP over cell. A packed Class A has enough addresses for the some of our states. Got 50-some? How about the rest of the world. NAT works while I'm one of 0.5% doing this. But my computer phobic friends are getting phones that do IM and take pictures and other non-realtime tasks. Cell companies can write proprietary means to handle this, but they were involved in laying the groundwork for IPv6. It was the utility companies who pushed for such a huge address space. "Imagine an address for every outlet." Migration and deployment: The neat thing is that my boxes have both IPv4 *and* IPv6 addresses. As the tools I use became IPv6 aware, they use the IPv6 addresses. The other tools just aren't aware of it and use IPv4. It's invisible to me as a user and as an administrator. So migration can take place *over YEARS* with little to no pain. And I get to learn. When I mounted a disk from a server, it took me some time to realized it was mounted over IPv6 because the last OS upgrade now supported it. I just asked it to mount the file system. And that's a goal. As a subnet stops needing IPv4, I can turn IPv4 off. Those data may get turned into IPv4 at the edge of an IPv4 network - it's little effort to setup, but going to IPv6 machines it stays in 6. It's not like that night in 1980 when NCP (Network Control Protocol) TCP's predecessors) was turned off and TCP was turned on. Large ISPs and enterprises can bring it in slowly and methodically. And that's a goal. Well, your large ISP may be using it in their core of networks right now. At the edge, you see your old IPv4 stuff, but it may be going from their router to the other side of their network, or even into the target network over IPv6. And you don't know. And that's a goal. This month, the IETF groups are meeting to plan on how to shut down the "6bone" - an IPv6 tunnel faux-backbone - in a few years. Why? Because ISPs, largely not in the US, are offering IPv6. It's available on most operating sytems offered since 2001. It's here. Why is it important to use now, before we *need* it? Because then we won't be caught unaware when we need it. Experience in tools before you have to use them is good. Now, feel free to ignore it. I made a good living in the 90's working with IPX/SPX experts because I knew TCP/IP and how to run a Cisco router and how to setup a network right. I've made a good living migrating networks using addresses that were "just made up" before they attached to the Internet. I've helped merged companies that both used 10/8 addresses (that's 10.x.x.x, RFC1918 addresses). I'd be happy to take your money when you suddenly find yourself rushing to implement IPv6. > I just don't see any need to convert my functional IPv4 network to IPv6. Perhaps I can rephrase this as: "IPv4 is enough for us." I'll put that up next to "nobody needs more than 640K" and other visionary statements. The list is near my Intel box that has to boot into the first 8GB, because nobody would ever have more than 8 GigaBytes(!) of harddrive. (3 disks in software raid give me 300GB of files served without IPX or SMB or other proprietary protocols. My machines that were never expected to run MS operating systems have no problems with very large drives or lots of RAM. Coincidence?) chuck yerkes chuck@2003.snew.com Internet Consultant IPv4 and IPv6 spoken here. From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Wed Mar 12 20:08:41 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:08:41 +0000 Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host In-Reply-To: <000a01c2e867$19894fe0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> References: <000a01c2e867$19894fe0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> Message-ID: <20030312200841.GC20467@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> I think you'll find this only works on Linux and (Free)BSD. One solution is to run a local BIND cache that listens on IPv4 localhost and forwards queries over IPv6. If Solaris can now resolve over v6, I'd like to know :) Tim On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:15:02PM +0800, yjchui wrote: > Hello: > Does anybody know that how to specify IPv6 DNS server on a IPv6-only host? (solaris/windows) > I have tried to edit /etc/resolv.conf on solaris 8 with adding one line: "nameserver 3ffe:3600:8::1" > But it seems not work! > > Is it possible to specify an IPv6 DNS server on windows system? (XP, 2000 or .Net) > > Thanks > > Yann-Ju Chu > E-mail: yjchui@cht.com.tw From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Wed Mar 12 20:09:28 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:09:28 +0000 Subject: [6bone] which kind of tool for monitoring bandwhich In-Reply-To: References: <002401c2e803$3f399740$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20030312200928.GD20467@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Try ttcp. On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:31:48AM +0000, Abdul Basit wrote: > i doubt iperf does support multicast ? > > > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > Galbo Emanuele wrote: > > > > > HI all I am testing an Ipv6 multicast test plant and I need > > > to test band-usage.Could you suggest me a friendly tool doing that? > > > Thank you.Best Regards > > > > IPerf: > > > > www.google.com -> iperf > > > > http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/ > > > > > ==================================================================== > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > > This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons > > > above and may contain confidential information. If you have received > > > the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof > > > is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete > > > the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by > > > replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you > > > ==================================================================== > > > > Eek, public mailinglists can't be confidential, you really must be > > kidding. > > > > Greets, > > Jeroen > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From tlangdon@atctraining.com.au Wed Mar 12 21:16:06 2003 From: tlangdon@atctraining.com.au (Tony Langdon) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:16:06 +1100 Subject: [6bone] came across this article any opinions?? Message-ID: > So here I am, manager of an IPv4-based network that works > fine, is addressed > in a logical and easy-to-maintain manner, is secure, and > integrates my voice > and data. I just don't see any need to convert my functional > IPv4 network to > IPv6. Sounds like he's found an IPv4 solution - and doesn't have to wrestle with NAT screwing up a plethora of proprietary protocols which insist on making incoming connections to random ports, or several voice/videoconferencing systems, each with their own protocol. I tend to play with whatever comes along, as well as regularly using a number of specific applications which have specific requirements when it comes to open ports, etc, and quite frankly, NAT is a pain. Native IPv6 with each machine having public IP(v6) addresses would make life so much easier. On some of the support lists I'm on, the most FAQ is "I'm trying to run two copies of XXX on my network. I have a (NAT) router with 3 PCs. Had one working fine, but I can't get the second one to work!!! Help!" (the answer being due to the fact the app needs a couple of UDP ports forwarded for incoming traffic). Ironically, it may be the home/hobbyist users who lead the IPv6 push.... if it can be packaged into a slick advertising campaign with a catchy slogan (and maybe a couple of IPv6 networked cellphones thrown in... :) ). This correspondence is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this correspondence in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or rely on any part of this correspondence if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. From yasuhiro@nttv6.jp Thu Mar 13 01:25:17 2003 From: yasuhiro@nttv6.jp (SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:25:17 +0900 (JST) Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host In-Reply-To: <000a01c2e867$19894fe0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> References: <000a01c2e867$19894fe0$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> Message-ID: <20030313.102517.74706776.yasuhiro@nttv6.jp> > I have tried to edit /etc/resolv.conf on solaris 8 with adding one line: "nameserver 3ffe:3600:8::1" > But it seems not work! > Is it possible to specify an IPv6 DNS server on windows system? (XP, 2000 or .Net) Neither solaris8 nor windows supports an IPv6 transport DNS query. -- SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro From yjchui@cht.com.tw Thu Mar 13 00:51:58 2003 From: yjchui@cht.com.tw (yjchui) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:51:58 +0800 Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host References: Message-ID: <004f01c2e8fa$c61b9680$27a9900a@twinkletaipei> I have tried to add nameserver [3ffe:3600:8::1] But it still does not work! I will try this on FreeBSD/Linux. Thanks to everybody Yann-Ju Chu E-mail: yjchui@cht.com.tw ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sascha E. Pollok" To: Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host > > > Does anybody know that how to specify IPv6 DNS server on a IPv6-only > > > host? (solaris/windows) I have tried to edit /etc/resolv.conf on > > > solaris 8 with adding one line: "nameserver 3ffe:3600:8::1" But it > > > seems not work! > > > > > > what if you try with square brackets? so like: > > > > nameserver [3ffe:3600:8::1] > > > > > Is it possible to specify an IPv6 DNS server on windows system? (XP, > > > 2000 or .Net) > > > > Don't know :) probably not, or via the ipv6 tool in dos. > > Did you configure /etc/nsswitch.conf to query for "6" hosts? > > Regards > Sascha > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From stansley@microsoft.com Thu Mar 13 04:05:07 2003 From: stansley@microsoft.com (Stewart Tansley) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:05:07 -0800 Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host Message-ID: > > Is it possible to specify an IPv6 DNS server on windows system? (XP, 2000 or .Net) > > Neither solaris8 nor windows supports an IPv6 transport DNS query. Not true, the forthcoming Windows Server 2003's DNS client and server supports it -- so, to enable DNS transport over IPv6: dnscmd /Config /EnableIPv6 1 To view the current state: dnscmd /Info /EnableIPv6 I don't think there is a GUI equivalent to these commands available at this time though. This command is documented in the online help. Search on "dnscmd ipv6" to get directly to it in the first hit. To get the Windows Server 2003 beta: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/preview/obtaining.mspx As for clients, I know that Windows CE .NET 4.1 supports it, but I'd have to check for Windows XP and Windows XP Embedded. Stewart Tansley http://www.microsoft.com/embedded http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6 From hank@att.net.il Thu Mar 13 12:00:03 2003 From: hank@att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:00:03 +0200 Subject: [6bone] Security over IPv6 networks In-Reply-To: <20030312175048.GC24120@snew.com> References: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030313135356.05ef9de0@max.att.net.il> At 12:50 PM 12-03-03 -0500, Chuck Yerkes wrote: >NAT is not security. Recent exploits have further hammered >this home, but it's never been about security. It's been about >dealing with 8 IP addresses and 200 machines. > >Can it help security some? Sure. I made by friend with Windows >and DSL get a NAT box. Badly written client applications can easily >be tricked into downloading bad code eliciting buffer over flow >or, for the really bad programs like Outlook and IE, running code >from strangers. All through NAT. > >Is NAT a firewall? Only for the naive. Checkpoint will soon be releasing their "Calgary" release (FP4) - Early Availability 2 should be ready next week. From their beta documentation of FP4: IPv6 22)In Calgary,FireWall-1 supports IPv6 out of the box. Supported platforms •Solaris 8/9 •Nokia IPSO 3.7 Supported features •Dual stack –both IPv6 and IPv4 on the same interface. •IPv6 access control with accept/drop/reject/log actions. •Simple TCP and UDP services,and ICMPv6. •IPv6 FTP service (active and passive). •IPv6 Host and Network objects. •Using IPv6 &IPv4 objects in the same rule base. •IPv6 logging and IPv6 filters. •Implied rules for enabling traffic needed for IPv6 discovery IPv6 fragments. •Using IPv6 requires a special license which is not included in the trial period and EVAL licenses. -Hank From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu Mar 13 14:07:10 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:07:10 +0000 Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030313140710.GY25507@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> So where do I buy a copy of Windows Server 2003 now? :) I am also a little confused - the Server package has a client and server, so you can install the client on a non-Windows Server machine? Tim On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:05:07PM -0800, Stewart Tansley wrote: > > > > Is it possible to specify an IPv6 DNS server on windows system? > (XP, 2000 or .Net) > > > > Neither solaris8 nor windows supports an IPv6 transport DNS query. > > Not true, the forthcoming Windows Server 2003's DNS client and server > supports it -- so, to enable DNS transport over IPv6: > > dnscmd /Config /EnableIPv6 1 > > To view the current state: > > dnscmd /Info /EnableIPv6 > > I don't think there is a GUI equivalent to these commands available at > this time though. > > This command is documented in the online help. Search on "dnscmd ipv6" > to get directly to it in the first hit. > > To get the Windows Server 2003 beta: > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/preview/obtaining.mspx > > As for clients, I know that Windows CE .NET 4.1 supports it, but I'd > have to check for Windows XP and Windows XP Embedded. > > Stewart Tansley > http://www.microsoft.com/embedded > http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6 > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Thu Mar 13 14:10:30 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:10:30 +0000 Subject: [6bone] Security over IPv6 networks In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030313135356.05ef9de0@max.att.net.il> References: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <5.1.0.14.2.20030313135356.05ef9de0@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <20030313141030.GA25507@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Does anyone know if the Nokia firewalls will also be on the same path soon? Tim On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:00:03PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 12:50 PM 12-03-03 -0500, Chuck Yerkes wrote: > >NAT is not security. Recent exploits have further hammered > >this home, but it's never been about security. It's been about > >dealing with 8 IP addresses and 200 machines. > > > >Can it help security some? Sure. I made by friend with Windows > >and DSL get a NAT box. Badly written client applications can easily > >be tricked into downloading bad code eliciting buffer over flow > >or, for the really bad programs like Outlook and IE, running code > >from strangers. All through NAT. > > > >Is NAT a firewall? Only for the naive. > > Checkpoint will soon be releasing their "Calgary" release (FP4) - Early > Availability 2 should be ready next week. > > From their beta documentation of FP4: > > IPv6 > 22)In Calgary,FireWall-1 supports IPv6 out of the box. > Supported platforms > •Solaris 8/9 > •Nokia IPSO 3.7 > Supported features > •Dual stack –both IPv6 and IPv4 on the same interface. > •IPv6 access control with accept/drop/reject/log actions. > •Simple TCP and UDP services,and ICMPv6. > •IPv6 FTP service (active and passive). > •IPv6 Host and Network objects. > •Using IPv6 &IPv4 objects in the same rule base. > •IPv6 logging and IPv6 filters. > •Implied rules for enabling traffic needed for IPv6 discovery IPv6 > fragments. > •Using IPv6 requires a special license which is not included in the trial > period and EVAL licenses. > > -Hank > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From basit@basit.cc Thu Mar 13 14:12:29 2003 From: basit@basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:12:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] Careers in IPv6. In-Reply-To: <20030312143008.GA9450@bfib.colo.bit.nl> References: <20030312143008.GA9450@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Message-ID: > I think the IPv6 'jobs' are non-existant. There will be a > demand for engineers which can deploy this protocol, just > as any other (ATM, MPLS, IPv4, PPPoX). that's what i see it as also, but the point was there are not any demand for such an engineers currently as IPv6 is not widely deployed. > In my job, I am confronted with IPv6 on a regular (allmost daily) base, > because the ISP I work for offers this type of connectivityto our > customers. You'r lucky ! :-) > groet, > Pim > > -- > ---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- > Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl > http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment > ----------------------------------------------- > From tbegin@tf1.fr Thu Mar 13 14:36:58 2003 From: tbegin@tf1.fr (BEGIN, Thomas) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:36:58 +0100 Subject: [6bone] RE: 6bone digest, Vol 1 #292 - 10 msgs Message-ID: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCA59@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> >> I have tried to edit /etc/resolv.conf on solaris 8 with adding one line: "nameserver 3ffe:3600:8::1" >> But it seems not work! >> Is it possible to specify an IPv6 DNS server on windows system? (XP, >>2000 or .Net) >Neither solaris8 nor windows supports an IPv6 transport DNS query. hi, not really true... microsoft will support IPv6 natively in the windows 2003 server it's already possible to download a beta version of this OS -Thomas From vaxzilla@jarai.org Thu Mar 13 15:10:19 2003 From: vaxzilla@jarai.org (Brian Chase) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:10:19 -0800 (PDT) Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Stewart Tansley wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro wrote: > > Neither solaris8 nor windows supports an IPv6 transport DNS query. > > Not true, the forthcoming Windows Server 2003's DNS client and server > supports it -- so, to enable DNS transport over IPv6: Actually, since Shirasaki correctly used the present tense form of the verb "support", his statement is true. Your use of the modifier "forthcoming" indicates that this support is something that'll be happening in the future. It would've been more correct to write: "...the forthcoming Windows Server 2003's DNS client and server /will support/ it..." HTH! -brian. From danne@wiberg.nu Thu Mar 13 15:38:26 2003 From: danne@wiberg.nu (Daniel Wiberg) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:38:26 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Security over IPv6 networks In-Reply-To: <20030313141030.GA25507@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> References: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <5.1.0.14.2.20030313135356.05ef9de0@max.att.net.il> <20030313141030.GA25507@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <3E70A5F2.7050308@wiberg.nu> Taken from the Nokia supportsite, current version is 3.6FCS6. Subject: Can Voyager be accessed via an IPv6 Network? Product Line: IPSO (Operating system) Category: IPV6 Version: Date Modified: 09/19/2001 Description: IPSO 3.3 and later support IPv6 as part of the Operating System. Check Point itself does not support IPv6. Solution: As of IPSO 3.4.1, the Voyager interface is not accessible over IPv6. This is because the underlying HTTP server does not support IPv6. Work is underway to resolve this issue. IPSO 3.6 and later will support Voyager over IPv6 out of the box. //danne -- Daniel Wiberg www.wiberg.nu Tim Chown wrote: >Does anyone know if the Nokia firewalls will also be on the same path soon? > >Tim > >On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:00:03PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > >>At 12:50 PM 12-03-03 -0500, Chuck Yerkes wrote: >> >> >>>NAT is not security. Recent exploits have further hammered >>>this home, but it's never been about security. It's been about >>>dealing with 8 IP addresses and 200 machines. >>> >>>Can it help security some? Sure. I made by friend with Windows >>>and DSL get a NAT box. Badly written client applications can easily >>>be tricked into downloading bad code eliciting buffer over flow >>>or, for the really bad programs like Outlook and IE, running code >>> >>> >>>from strangers. All through NAT. >> >> >>>Is NAT a firewall? Only for the naive. >>> >>> >>Checkpoint will soon be releasing their "Calgary" release (FP4) - Early >>Availability 2 should be ready next week. >> >>From their beta documentation of FP4: >> >>IPv6 >>22)In Calgary,FireWall-1 supports IPv6 out of the box. >>Supported platforms >>•Solaris 8/9 >>•Nokia IPSO 3.7 >>Supported features >>•Dual stack –both IPv6 and IPv4 on the same interface. >>•IPv6 access control with accept/drop/reject/log actions. >>•Simple TCP and UDP services,and ICMPv6. >>•IPv6 FTP service (active and passive). >>•IPv6 Host and Network objects. >>•Using IPv6 &IPv4 objects in the same rule base. >>•IPv6 logging and IPv6 filters. >>•Implied rules for enabling traffic needed for IPv6 discovery IPv6 >>fragments. >>•Using IPv6 requires a special license which is not included in the trial >>period and EVAL licenses. >> >>-Hank >> >>_______________________________________________ >>6bone mailing list >>6bone@mailman.isi.edu >>http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone >> >> >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > From dy@davidyip.com Thu Mar 13 15:48:07 2003 From: dy@davidyip.com (David Yip) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:48:07 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Careers in IPv6. References: <20030312143008.GA9450@bfib.colo.bit.nl> Message-ID: <3E70A837.1060307@davidyip.com> IPv6 should be coming real fast wit the help of Microsoft! Take a look at MS new IPv6 only application, www.threedegrees.com. It runs on IPv6!!! Abdul Basit wrote: >>I think the IPv6 'jobs' are non-existant. There will be a >>demand for engineers which can deploy this protocol, just >>as any other (ATM, MPLS, IPv4, PPPoX). > > > that's what i see it as also, but the point was there > are not any demand for such an engineers currently > as IPv6 is not widely deployed. > > >>In my job, I am confronted with IPv6 on a regular (allmost daily) base, >>because the ISP I work for offers this type of connectivityto our >>customers. > > > You'r lucky ! :-) > > >>groet, >>Pim >> >>-- >>---------- - - - - -+- - - - - ---------- >>Pim van Pelt Email: pim@ipng.nl >>http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment >>----------------------------------------------- >> > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From jeroen@unfix.org Thu Mar 13 19:12:09 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:12:09 +0100 Subject: [6bone] How to specify an IPv6 DNS server on the IPv6-only host In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000b01c2e994$735b2560$210d640a@unfix.org> Brian Chase wrote: > On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Stewart Tansley wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro wrote: > > > > Neither solaris8 nor windows supports an IPv6 transport DNS query. > > > > Not true, the forthcoming Windows Server 2003's DNS client > and server > > supports it -- so, to enable DNS transport over IPv6: > > Actually, since Shirasaki correctly used the present tense form > of the verb "support", his statement is true. Your use of the > modifier "forthcoming" indicates that this support is something > that'll be happening in the future. It would've been more correct > to write: "...the forthcoming Windows Server 2003's DNS client > and server /will support/ it..." taalnazi (if you want to know what it means look it up in a dutch dict ;) At least MS is going to support it in their upcoming product. Isn't that a good thing or is all one can do is flame MS? Or should they be supplying an 'upgrade' for every new version? I wonder how people got up to Red Hat 8 and Solaris 9... if you get my drift. Instead of flaming MS, like every slashdot kiddie like to do contribute positive things to the IPv6 world. And that world compromises of any OS supporting IPv6 and all the OS's go hand in hand. Greets, Jeroen From david@IPRG.nokia.com Thu Mar 13 20:15:02 2003 From: david@IPRG.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:15:02 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Security over IPv6 networks In-Reply-To: <20030313141030.GA25507@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>; from tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk on Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:10:30PM +0000 References: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <5.1.0.14.2.20030313135356.05ef9de0@max.att.net.il> <20030313141030.GA25507@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20030313121502.A17214@iprg.nokia.com> Tim, On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:10:30PM +0000, Tim Chown wrote: > > Does anyone know if the Nokia firewalls will also be on the same path soon? Yes - I already have a beta version of the IPv6 Checkpoint/IPSO Nokia firewall in my network. David K. --- From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Fri Mar 14 00:38:03 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:38:03 +0000 Subject: [6bone] Security over IPv6 networks In-Reply-To: <20030313121502.A17214@iprg.nokia.com> References: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <5.1.0.14.2.20030313135356.05ef9de0@max.att.net.il> <20030313141030.GA25507@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20030313121502.A17214@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <20030314003802.GE10703@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> When will it be available of the shelf, and where's the spec of the functionality? (Very keen as a potential buyer with money in the bank :) Tim On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:15:02PM -0800, David Kessens wrote: > > Tim, > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:10:30PM +0000, Tim Chown wrote: > > > > Does anyone know if the Nokia firewalls will also be on the same path soon? > > Yes - I already have a beta version of the IPv6 Checkpoint/IPSO Nokia > firewall in my network. > > David K. > --- > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From hank@att.net.il Fri Mar 14 06:12:06 2003 From: hank@att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:12:06 +0200 Subject: [6bone] Security over IPv6 networks In-Reply-To: <20030314003802.GE10703@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> References: <20030313121502.A17214@iprg.nokia.com> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <5.1.0.14.2.20030313135356.05ef9de0@max.att.net.il> <20030313141030.GA25507@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20030313121502.A17214@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030314080849.0100cfd8@max.att.net.il> At 12:38 AM 14-03-03 +0000, Tim Chown wrote: Since it is based on Checkpoint's FP4 it will probably have these IPv6 features: - Dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 firewall running on either Solaris 8/9 or Nokia IPSO 3.7 - IPv6 access control with accept/drop/reject/log actions. - Simple TCP and UDP IPv6 services - http, telnet, ICMPv6, etc. - IPv6 FTP service (active and passive) - IPv6 Host and Network objects - IPv6 & IPv4 objects in rulebase. Mixing of IPv6 and IPv4 objects is allowed in the rulebase. - IPv6 logging and IPv6 filters - Implied rules for enabling traffic needed for IPv6 discovery - IPv6 fragments It will not have yet these features: - Anti spoofing - Boot policy - NAT - VPN - IPv6 rules with resources (Security Servers) - IPv6 addresses resolving in SmartView tracker - IPv6 option headers other than fragmentation -Hank >When will it be available of the shelf, and where's the spec of the >functionality? (Very keen as a potential buyer with money in the bank :) > >Tim > >On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:15:02PM -0800, David Kessens wrote: > > > > Tim, > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:10:30PM +0000, Tim Chown wrote: > > > > > > Does anyone know if the Nokia firewalls will also be on the same path > soon? > > > > Yes - I already have a beta version of the IPv6 Checkpoint/IPSO Nokia > > firewall in my network. > > > > David K. > > --- > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From paitken@cisco.com Fri Mar 14 15:45:07 2003 From: paitken@cisco.com (Paul Aitken) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:45:07 +0000 Subject: [6bone] came across this article any opinions?? References: <3106F19CD154D34A818258EBC4147D19E5DFB8@gabriel.ul.ie> <20030312195637.GD24120@snew.com> Message-ID: <3E71F903.5030502@cisco.com> Chuck, > Wow! My opinion is that in 2000 (03/13/00), that this was > a reasonable view. IPv6 and indeed the 6bone wasn't "there." > > I had early IPv6 support in BSD, none in vendor supplied Unix. > Cisco was barely talking about it. FWIW, Kirk Lougheed tells me that IPv6 work started in the first week of May 1996 with the first EFT in December '96. Cheers. -- Paul Aitken Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland. From dlc-6bone@halibut.com Fri Mar 14 20:30:16 2003 From: dlc-6bone@halibut.com (David Carmean) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:30:16 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Security over IPv6 networks In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030314080849.0100cfd8@max.att.net.il>; from hank@att.net.il on Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 08:12:06AM +0200 References: <20030313121502.A17214@iprg.nokia.com> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <5.1.0.14.2.20030313135356.05ef9de0@max.att.net.il> <20030313141030.GA25507@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20030313121502.A17214@iprg.nokia.com> <20030314003802.GE10703@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <5.1.0.14.2.20030314080849.0100cfd8@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <20030314123016.S12906@halibut.com> Do you know if/think it will have the ability to be a tunnel endpoint? On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 08:12:06AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > At 12:38 AM 14-03-03 +0000, Tim Chown wrote: > > Since it is based on Checkpoint's FP4 it will probably have these IPv6 > features: > > - Dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 firewall running on either Solaris 8/9 or Nokia > IPSO 3.7 > - IPv6 access control with accept/drop/reject/log actions. > - Simple TCP and UDP IPv6 services - http, telnet, ICMPv6, etc. > - IPv6 FTP service (active and passive) > - IPv6 Host and Network objects > - IPv6 & IPv4 objects in rulebase. Mixing of IPv6 and IPv4 objects is > allowed in the rulebase. > - IPv6 logging and IPv6 filters > - Implied rules for enabling traffic needed for IPv6 discovery > - IPv6 fragments > > It will not have yet these features: > - Anti spoofing > - Boot policy > - NAT > - VPN > - IPv6 rules with resources (Security Servers) > - IPv6 addresses resolving in SmartView tracker > - IPv6 option headers other than fragmentation > > -Hank > > >When will it be available of the shelf, and where's the spec of the > >functionality? (Very keen as a potential buyer with money in the bank :) > > > >Tim > > > >On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:15:02PM -0800, David Kessens wrote: > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:10:30PM +0000, Tim Chown wrote: > > > > > > > > Does anyone know if the Nokia firewalls will also be on the same path > > soon? > > > > > > Yes - I already have a beta version of the IPv6 Checkpoint/IPSO Nokia > > > firewall in my network. > > > > > > David K. > > > --- > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 6bone mailing list > > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > >_______________________________________________ > >6bone mailing list > >6bone@mailman.isi.edu > >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From david@IPRG.nokia.com Fri Mar 14 21:50:25 2003 From: david@IPRG.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:50:25 -0800 Subject: [6bone] Security over IPv6 networks In-Reply-To: <20030314003802.GE10703@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>; from tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk on Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:38:03AM +0000 References: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <5.1.0.14.2.20030313135356.05ef9de0@max.att.net.il> <20030313141030.GA25507@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <200303131 Message-ID: <20030314135025.A18611@iprg.nokia.com> Tim, On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 12:38:03AM +0000, Tim Chown wrote: > > When will it be available of the shelf, and where's the spec of the > functionality? (Very keen as a potential buyer with money in the bank :) I checked with a few people and this is what they answered me: --- I would expect to see released code in May. As for specifications of the functionality, what is available can be obtained by registering for the beta program on CP's web site. Release Notes, What's new and preliminary users guide should be there. --- I hope this helps. Please follow up privately with me if you have more questions, David K. --- From tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Sat Mar 15 00:34:54 2003 From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Tim Chown) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:34:54 +0000 Subject: [6bone] came across this article any opinions?? In-Reply-To: <3E71F903.5030502@cisco.com> References: <3106F19CD154D34A818258EBC4147D19E5DFB8@gabriel.ul.ie> <20030312195637.GD24120@snew.com> <3E71F903.5030502@cisco.com> Message-ID: <20030315003454.GR25181@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:45:07PM +0000, Paul Aitken wrote: > Chuck, > > > Wow! My opinion is that in 2000 (03/13/00), that this was > > a reasonable view. IPv6 and indeed the 6bone wasn't "there." > > > > I had early IPv6 support in BSD, none in vendor supplied Unix. > > Cisco was barely talking about it. > > FWIW, Kirk Lougheed tells me that IPv6 work started in the first week of > May 1996 with the first EFT in December '96. Yeah, sounds about right. We had one of the first native v6 WAN links in the UK (the first?) in early 1997 from Southampton to UUNet London using a 2500 at each end. In that early phase we also had IPv6 router products from Ericsson Telebit, 3Com and DEC. Tim From chuck+6bone@snew.com Sat Mar 15 01:52:33 2003 From: chuck+6bone@snew.com (Chuck Yerkes) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:52:33 -0500 Subject: [6bone] came across this article any opinions?? In-Reply-To: <3E71F903.5030502@cisco.com> References: <3106F19CD154D34A818258EBC4147D19E5DFB8@gabriel.ul.ie> <20030312195637.GD24120@snew.com> <3E71F903.5030502@cisco.com> Message-ID: <20030315015233.GB28404@snew.com> Quoting Paul Aitken (paitken@cisco.com): > Chuck, > > Wow! My opinion is that in 2000 (03/13/00), that this was > > a reasonable view. IPv6 and indeed the 6bone wasn't "there." > > > > I had early IPv6 support in BSD, none in vendor supplied Unix. > > Cisco was barely talking about it. > > FWIW, Kirk Lougheed tells me that IPv6 work started in the first week of > May 1996 with the first EFT in December '96. In the context of the article, I'd count "there" not as "I can get a packet from here to somewhere else" but rather as "I can actually use this for something more useful that seeing that it works." Bell calling Watson didn't count as a phone network. Phones were only useful when many people had them. In 2000, I could run IPv6 on a couple OSs, not many. Patches from playground.sun.com let me get Solaris working, kind of. Sendmail, AFAIK, spoke v6 early on (and I pushed hard to get IPv6 support into the commercial version). But getting Cisco IOS' that supported it (esp on production machines) or anything useful out of IPv6 was mostly unlikely in 3/2000. Most of us were distracted by the sound of the big drain starting to suck the economy down anyhow. Does anyone have a count of 6bone tunnel end points (at the least) over time? Any way to track the growth and use of IPv6 on backbones or particular NAPs and joining points? From stansley@microsoft.com Sat Mar 15 02:10:52 2003 From: stansley@microsoft.com (Stewart Tansley) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:10:52 -0800 Subject: [6bone] came across this article any opinions?? Message-ID: > Bell calling Watson didn't count as a phone network. > Phones were only useful when many people had them. Metcalfe's Law. Stewart Tansley http://www.microsoft.com/embedded http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6 From bmanning@ISI.EDU Sat Mar 15 02:56:21 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:56:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] came across this article any opinions?? In-Reply-To: <20030315015233.GB28404@snew.com> from Chuck Yerkes at "Mar 14, 3 08:52:33 pm" Message-ID: <200303150256.h2F2uMU13047@boreas.isi.edu> % > FWIW, Kirk Lougheed tells me that IPv6 work started in the first week of % > May 1996 with the first EFT in December '96. Thats the earliest EFT image I have. :) % Does anyone have a count of 6bone tunnel end points (at the % least) over time? Any way to track the growth and use of % IPv6 on backbones or particular NAPs and joining points? All of my tunnels have init-dates. It may be worthwhile noting that most US exchanges (well all exchanges with address space managed by ep.net that have current paperwork filed) have active IPv6 delegations available - many are using those delegations for their clients. % _______________________________________________ % 6bone mailing list % 6bone@mailman.isi.edu % http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone % -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From hank@att.net.il Mon Mar 17 07:21:26 2003 From: hank@att.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 09:21:26 +0200 Subject: [6bone] Security over IPv6 networks In-Reply-To: <20030314123016.S12906@halibut.com> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030314080849.0100cfd8@max.att.net.il> <20030313121502.A17214@iprg.nokia.com> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD21A6AF9@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> <5.1.0.14.2.20030313135356.05ef9de0@max.att.net.il> <20030313141030.GA25507@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20030313121502.A17214@iprg.nokia.com> <20030314003802.GE10703@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <5.1.0.14.2.20030314080849.0100cfd8@max.att.net.il> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030317091957.00fb64d0@max.att.net.il> At 12:30 PM 14-03-03 -0800, David Carmean wrote: The response I got back from Checkpoint IPv6 development was "Yes. We have that ability, but we don't do this by ourselves - we rely on the OS to do the tunneling. If the machine is the endpoint of IPv6 traffic encapsulated in IPv6 tunnel (IPv4 protocol number 41), we are able to inspect both IPv6 and IPv4 packets." Hope that helps, -Hank >Do you know if/think it will have the ability to be a tunnel endpoint? > > > >On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 08:12:06AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > At 12:38 AM 14-03-03 +0000, Tim Chown wrote: > > > > Since it is based on Checkpoint's FP4 it will probably have these IPv6 > > features: > > > > - Dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 firewall running on either Solaris 8/9 or Nokia > > IPSO 3.7 > > - IPv6 access control with accept/drop/reject/log actions. > > - Simple TCP and UDP IPv6 services - http, telnet, ICMPv6, etc. > > - IPv6 FTP service (active and passive) > > - IPv6 Host and Network objects > > - IPv6 & IPv4 objects in rulebase. Mixing of IPv6 and IPv4 objects is > > allowed in the rulebase. > > - IPv6 logging and IPv6 filters > > - Implied rules for enabling traffic needed for IPv6 discovery > > - IPv6 fragments > > > > It will not have yet these features: > > - Anti spoofing > > - Boot policy > > - NAT > > - VPN > > - IPv6 rules with resources (Security Servers) > > - IPv6 addresses resolving in SmartView tracker > > - IPv6 option headers other than fragmentation > > > > -Hank > > > > >When will it be available of the shelf, and where's the spec of the > > >functionality? (Very keen as a potential buyer with money in the bank :) > > > > > >Tim > > > > > >On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:15:02PM -0800, David Kessens wrote: > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:10:30PM +0000, Tim Chown wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone know if the Nokia firewalls will also be on the same > path > > > soon? > > > > > > > > Yes - I already have a beta version of the IPv6 Checkpoint/IPSO Nokia > > > > firewall in my network. > > > > > > > > David K. > > > > --- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 6bone mailing list > > > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > >_______________________________________________ > > >6bone mailing list > > >6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From bob@thefinks.com Mon Mar 17 18:24:46 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:24:46 -0800 Subject: [6bone] 6bone pTLA 3FFE:4017::/32 allocated to CARTEL Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030317102120.0243f028@mail.addr.com> CARTEL has been allocated pTLA 3FFE:4017::/32 having finished its 2-week review period. Note that it will take a short while for their pTLA inet6num entry to appear in the 6bone registry as they have to create it themselves. However, their registration is listed on: [To create a reverse DNS registration in eff3.ip6.int for pTLAs, please send the prefix allocated above, and a list of at least two authoritative nameservers, to hostmaster@ep.net.] Thanks, Bob From bob@thefinks.com Wed Mar 19 18:35:08 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:35:08 -0800 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030318185641.01ed49e8@mail.addr.com> 6bone Folk, The 6bone planning issues BOF on Tuesday (at the IETF in San Francisco) covered two main topics. the RIR 6bone registry integration proposal and the 6bone phaseout planning proposal The RIR 6bone registry integration proposal, under discussion for about 12 months, has concluded with the RIRs (and Bob) agreeing that we should not carry on any further with the proposal. This is in light of: 6bone and RIR community comments, a concrete planning process underway to phaseout the 6bone, a great reduction in the pTLA allocation rate, an increase in the production prefix allocation rate, and the ability to get experimental IPv6 addresses from the RIRs. Thus the 6bone would continue to manage its own allocation process until the planned phaseout dates (whatever they turn out to be in the RFC). Also, the RIRs agreed that the 6bone should be delegated the control over e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa. Randy Bush wanted this to be formalized by an RFC and Bob Fink will pursue this immediately. Marc Blanchet and David Kessens are working on the technical details of the e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa support already, with support of Bill Manning, and will provide a report soon to the list on how the service will be provided. The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong consensus reached on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone turn off date of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). I will circulate an updated version of the draft soon, but would like any comments on the dates above and anything else you might want to say about the current draft. I think we should close on this and try to move it to Informational RFC status as quickly as possible. Thanks to Jordi Palet for chairing the BOF, and Bob Hinden for sharing the load of presenting. Also, my many thanks to the RIR management folks that have worked with me on the proposal for the last year, and helped to forge a good relationship and understanding with the 6bone community. Thanks, Bob From rhe@nosc.ja.net Wed Mar 19 19:57:51 2003 From: rhe@nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:57:51 +0000 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030318185641.01ed49e8@mail.addr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030318185641.01ed49e8@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <20030319195751.GA23483@nosc.ja.net> Hi Bob, > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong consensus reached > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone turn off date > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). Just a quick comment on something that was brought up yesterday. The current draft recommends that IANA not reallocate 3FFE::/16 for two years from 6/6/06. On that date, network operators are likely to put filters on that will block routing for the 6bone prefixes (as may be considered operationally sound), and there is the danger we end up in the same position as the IPv4 world is currently experiencing with 69.0.0.0/8 (see the NANOG archives if you're unfamiliar with this problem). A note regarding the future global routability of 3FFE::/16 might be a worthwhile addition, do others agree? Regards, Rob From jguthrie@brokersys.com Wed Mar 19 20:45:49 2003 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:45:49 -0600 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030318185641.01ed49e8@mail.addr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030318185641.01ed49e8@mail.addr.com> Message-ID: <20030319204548.GA16778@brokersys.com> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong consensus reached > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone turn off date > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). I think it's insane to set a date for the end of the 6bone when there is no replacement for it in the USA. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Sto pro veritate From JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <20030319195751.GA23483@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: <13c501c2ee12$5cbc46e0$da4f8182@consulintel.es> Yes, seems to me sensible to do so. Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Evans" To: "Bob Fink" Cc: "6BONE List" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF > Hi Bob, > > > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong consensus reached > > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone turn off date > > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). > > Just a quick comment on something that was brought up yesterday. > > The current draft recommends that IANA not reallocate 3FFE::/16 for two > years from 6/6/06. On that date, network operators are likely to put > filters on that will block routing for the 6bone prefixes (as may be > considered operationally sound), and there is the danger we end up in > the same position as the IPv4 world is currently experiencing with > 69.0.0.0/8 (see the NANOG archives if you're unfamiliar with this > problem). A note regarding the future global routability of 3FFE::/16 > might be a worthwhile addition, do others agree? > > Regards, > Rob > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > ***************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit 12-14 May 2003 - Register at: http://www.ipv6-es.com From JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <20030319204548.GA16778@brokersys.com> Message-ID: <13e401c2ee12$9b5cd6d0$da4f8182@consulintel.es> You will discover soon that this will change in the next few months ... Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Guthrie" To: "Bob Fink" Cc: "6BONE List" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong consensus reached > > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone turn off date > > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). > > I think it's insane to set a date for the end of the 6bone when there is > no replacement for it in the USA. > -- > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) > Sto pro veritate > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > ***************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit 12-14 May 2003 - Register at: http://www.ipv6-es.com From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Mar 19 21:41:53 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:41:53 +0100 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <20030319195751.GA23483@nosc.ja.net> Message-ID: <000901c2ee60$5d38a660$210d640a@unfix.org> Rob Evans wrote: > > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong > consensus reached > > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone > turn off date > > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). > > Just a quick comment on something that was brought up yesterday. > > The current draft recommends that IANA not reallocate > 3FFE::/16 for two > years from 6/6/06. On that date, network operators are likely to put > filters on that will block routing for the 6bone prefixes (as may be > considered operationally sound), and there is the danger we end up in > the same position as the IPv4 world is currently experiencing with > 69.0.0.0/8 (see the NANOG archives if you're unfamiliar with this > problem). A note regarding the future global routability of 3FFE::/16 > might be a worthwhile addition, do others agree? There is nothing one can do against bad admins except hitting them quite hard with a very big cluestick. It's the same for the fact that you will still see Code Red and other worms flying around. Some people just don't do their job correctly or good. One solution to this, and some other problems could be solved by having a seperate 'blacklist BGP' which allows to block certain prefixes and other stuff from a central repository. Currently most people, with clue, will also be filtering IPv6 routes. See http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html If an admin doesn't update those, then you already have that problem. Same would go if there was a central repository but that repository would be out of sync. Checking my Distributed Looking Glass I notice that some ISP's still provide transit for any prefix. And a rule like the one proposed in http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt isn't being implemented by most ISP's either, except for the ones that really do like to do a good job. I also still see 3ffe:1f00::/24 ghosted, for almost a month now. Saying that I expect some things, like updating filters, simply can't be clued into some people who are simply too lazy to do it. Some people apparently don't care for the global network. Also note that everybody has the freedom to block/reject everything they want. It is their network. Greets, Jeroen From jguthrie@brokersys.com Wed Mar 19 22:07:32 2003 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:07:32 -0600 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <13e401c2ee12$9b5cd6d0$da4f8182@consulintel.es> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030318185641.01ed49e8@mail.addr.com> <20030319204548.GA16778@brokersys.com> <13e401c2ee12$9b5cd6d0$da4f8182@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <20030319220732.GA2067@brokersys.com> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 01:25:12PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong consensus reached > > > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone turn off date > > > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). > > I think it's insane to set a date for the end of the 6bone when there is > > no replacement for it in the USA. > You will discover soon that this will change in the next few months ... I doubt it, but if so then why not wait until then to set the date? If, as everyone seems to think, that will happen before I finish typing this message, then you can still schedule it to be next January and look like geniuses. If, as I think, that there still will be no way for my network to get native IPv6 on January 1 2004, then I'll have to have no IPv6 access. The jury is still out on whether that hurts you more than it does me. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Sto pro veritate From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Mar 19 22:10:33 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:10:33 +0100 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <20030319204548.GA16778@brokersys.com> Message-ID: <001f01c2ee64$5cfefbf0$210d640a@unfix.org> Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong > consensus reached > > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone > turn off date > > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). > > I think it's insane to set a date for the end of the 6bone > when there is no replacement for it in the USA. Remind me again about why americans are allowed to only think of theirselves. There are many countries which don't have IPv6 at all. But the US certainly has *Grab stats* http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/ Top 10 countries having TLA's: 1 United States 76 2 Japan 64 3 Germany 38 4 Netherlands 25 5 United Kingdom 21 6 Korea 18 7 Italy 17 8 France 14 9 Sweden 14 10 Austria 11 Now say again that there is no IPv6 in the US? Due note, ARIN has 56 delegations, of which 42 go the US. So half the delegations is actually 6bone, most probably most 6bone delegations also have a ARIN delegation by now. That half of the ARIN delegations isn't even announced, tsja... Maybe you should start kicking around your ISP's a bit more? There are enough ways of getting IPv6 in europe so why should that be so different from the US? You should also note that 2006 is in 3 years. There will change a load of things before that date. Greets, Jeroen From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Mar 19 22:18:37 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:18:37 +0100 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <13e401c2ee12$9b5cd6d0$da4f8182@consulintel.es> Message-ID: <002701c2ee65$7f4a0460$210d640a@unfix.org> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > You will discover soon that this will change in the next few > months ... And I guess you are talking about the cost waiver that is being proposed ;) But it is still to see if that will also make the ISP's actually use it... Fortunatly there are a couple of very good transition methods which can help out in the cases where native IPv6 is still not an option. Greets, Jeroen > > Jordi > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan Guthrie" > To: "Bob Fink" > Cc: "6BONE List" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:45 PM > Subject: Re: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > > > > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong > consensus reached > > > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a > 6bone turn off date > > > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). > > > > I think it's insane to set a date for the end of the 6bone > when there is > > no replacement for it in the USA. > > -- > > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) > > Sto pro veritate > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > > > > ***************************** > Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit > 12-14 May 2003 - Register at: > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" Message-ID: <1bb001c2ee1c$8679f630$da4f8182@consulintel.es> No, I was talking about something in the kitchen. But I don't have enough information and not sure if is public anyway. Other people in the mailing list can comment as they are more directly involved. Regards, Jordi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeroen Massar" To: "'JORDI PALET MARTINEZ'" ; "'6BONE List'" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:18 PM Subject: RE: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > > You will discover soon that this will change in the next few > > months ... > > And I guess you are talking about the cost waiver > that is being proposed ;) But it is still to see > if that will also make the ISP's actually use it... > Fortunatly there are a couple of very good > transition methods which can help out in the > cases where native IPv6 is still not an option. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > > > > Jordi > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jonathan Guthrie" > > To: "Bob Fink" > > Cc: "6BONE List" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:45 PM > > Subject: Re: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > > > > > > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong > > consensus reached > > > > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a > > 6bone turn off date > > > > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). > > > > > > I think it's insane to set a date for the end of the 6bone > > when there is > > > no replacement for it in the USA. > > > -- > > > Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) > > > Sto pro veritate > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 6bone mailing list > > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > > > > > > > > ***************************** > > Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit > > 12-14 May 2003 - Register at: > > http://www.ipv6-es.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 6bone mailing list > > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > ***************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit 12-14 May 2003 - Register at: http://www.ipv6-es.com From mrp@mrp.net Wed Mar 19 22:47:34 2003 From: mrp@mrp.net (Mark Prior) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:17:34 +1030 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <002701c2ee65$7f4a0460$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <002701c2ee65$7f4a0460$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: At 11:18 PM +0100 19/3/03, Jeroen Massar wrote: >JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > >> You will discover soon that this will change in the next few >> months ... > >And I guess you are talking about the cost waiver >that is being proposed ;) But it is still to see >if that will also make the ISP's actually use it... >Fortunatly there are a couple of very good >transition methods which can help out in the >cases where native IPv6 is still not an option. > The router vendors have got to get IPv6 support out in the code releases & platforms the ISPs want to run without requiring them to upgrade the hardware or move to different code streams (with a whole set of new bugs). Mark. From jeroen@unfix.org Wed Mar 19 23:00:57 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 00:00:57 +0100 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003901c2ee6b$67b239c0$210d640a@unfix.org> Mark Prior [mailto:mrp@mrp.net] wrote: > At 11:18 PM +0100 19/3/03, Jeroen Massar wrote: > >JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > > >> You will discover soon that this will change in the next few > >> months ... > > > >And I guess you are talking about the cost waiver > >that is being proposed ;) But it is still to see > >if that will also make the ISP's actually use it... > >Fortunatly there are a couple of very good > >transition methods which can help out in the > >cases where native IPv6 is still not an option. > > > > The router vendors have got to get IPv6 support out in the > code releases & platforms the ISPs want to run without > requiring them to upgrade the hardware or move to different > code streams (with a whole set of new bugs). I know of one vendor for which you really do want to move to a different code stream :) But in those cases I think, certainly for the time being these links can be IPv6'ed using some good reliable tunneling. The ISP's can then upgrade when they deem it stable enough. Note that I am talking about using 6in4 as an alternative to native IPv6 because the underlying hardware can't cope with it yet, or the ISP in question doesn't trust the new code bases yet. These tunnels will then have a max of 3 hops in the IPv4 world and never cross an AS boundary. Also see: http://ip6.de.easynet.net/ipv6-minimum-peering.txt Greets, Jeroen From rhe@nosc.ja.net Wed Mar 19 23:36:48 2003 From: rhe@nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 23:36:48 +0000 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <000901c2ee60$5d38a660$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <20030319195751.GA23483@nosc.ja.net> <000901c2ee60$5d38a660$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20030319233648.GA14599@nosc.ja.net> > There is nothing one can do against bad admins except hitting them > quite hard with a very big cluestick. Indeed, but documenting the possible issue would not be harmful, would it? If for some reason a prefix was needed that is would not be globally routable, this might then bubble straight to the top... > One solution to this, and some other problems could be solved > by having a seperate 'blacklist BGP' which allows to block > certain prefixes and other stuff from a central repository. I think one of the laws of the internet is that any routing-related mailing list eventually discusses the possibilities of centrally managed blackhole lists... > Currently most people, with clue, will also be filtering IPv6 > routes. See http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html > If an admin doesn't update those, then you already have that > problem. Right, although with any luck, there will be several orders of magnitude more IPv6 network operators by the time that 3FFE::/16 comes around of reuse (if it ever does), and statistics suggest that as well as many more clueful admins, there will be many more clueless admins. Of course, we may well have a new addressing and routing paradigm by that time too. :) Rob From jguthrie@brokersys.com Thu Mar 20 00:47:22 2003 From: jguthrie@brokersys.com (Jonathan Guthrie) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:47:22 -0600 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <001f01c2ee64$5cfefbf0$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <20030319204548.GA16778@brokersys.com> <001f01c2ee64$5cfefbf0$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <20030320004722.GA979@brokersys.com> On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:10:33PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong > > consensus reached > > > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone > > turn off date > > > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). > > I think it's insane to set a date for the end of the 6bone > > when there is no replacement for it in the USA. > Remind me again about why americans are allowed to only > think of theirselves. Why American's are allowed to only think of themselves? Are you telling me that you don't use ANY services that have any presence at all in the US? That's a pretty tall claim. This Internet thing is about communications. Communications implies that both ends can, well communicate. Cutting off one side or another arbitrarily will result in reduced value to both sides. For what it's worth, it seems to me that in the whole "let's schedule the destruction of the 6bone" discussion, the commentary has been dominated by people in Europe how have been thinking only of themselves. > There are many countries which > don't have IPv6 at all. Then the date for destroying the nest of tunnels that is the 6bone should not be scheduled until all of them have native IPv6 service, too. I didn't write about them because I can't speak for them, I can only speak for myself. > But the US certainly has > *Grab stats* > 76 > Now say again that there is no IPv6 in the US? Okay. There are no IPv6 providers in the US. That I can find. I've been talking about this for a month, now, and nobody on this list has attempted to enlighten me so I conclude that nobody else knows of any in the US, either. You certainly don't, or you would have named one. I've looked, and I haven't been able to find any. Note, please, that the fact that somebody has chosen to purchase a block of addresses does not imply that they have connectivity for sale or even that they intend to. What I really need is 2B ISDN dial-up with fixed addresses. However, even if someone is selling this service it doesn't matter because I know of no equipment I can use for my end on that sort of connection. I will admit that I haven't looked too hard for that. (What would be the point?) > Maybe you should start kicking around your ISP's a bit more? "Kicking around"? Just exactly WHAT kind of pull am I expected to have with my ISP? As I've said before, threatening to leave won't cut it. "Give me IPv6 connectivity or I'll disconnect completely from the Internet" isn't a credible threat. > There are enough ways of getting IPv6 in europe so why > should that be so different from the US? I don't know. My problem is that nobody who is pushing a rapid destruction of the 6bone realizes that the conditions are different in places that aren't right exactly where they are. If I were to be forced to guess, I'd guess that the real problem is the amount of money invested in current infrastructure that would have to be written off unless the equipment purchased by that money can be somehow upgraded. From what I can see, the Lucent Max TNT that I connect to cannot. > You should also note that 2006 is in 3 years. There > will change a load of things before that date. There will? Maybe, maybe not. Your crystal ball isn't any clearer than mine. I predict that the ILEC-based ISPs and the cable companies will have the bulk of the US Internet access business in 2006 and none of those companies has shown the slightest interest in IPv6 or has any intention of moving any faster than they possibly can on this issue. Of course, when you really get right down to it, what I really object to is setting a calendar date on something that doesn't really have a time element to it. What is necessary to make the dismantling of the 6bone a good idea is about how widely IPv6 is deployed in production, not about when some date rolls around. That's why setting a date, even one far in the future, until the basic conditions for making the 6bone irrelevant is not well considered. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Sto pro veritate From jeroen@unfix.org Thu Mar 20 01:32:47 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 02:32:47 +0100 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <20030320004722.GA979@brokersys.com> Message-ID: <000f01c2ee80$9dfa5b10$210d640a@unfix.org> Jonathan Guthrie [mailto:jguthrie@brokersys.com] wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:10:33PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > Jonathan Guthrie wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: > > > > > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong > > > consensus reached > > > > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone > > > turn off date > > > > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). > > > > I think it's insane to set a date for the end of the 6bone > > > when there is no replacement for it in the USA. > > > Remind me again about why americans are allowed to only > > think of theirselves. > > Why American's are allowed to only think of themselves? Are you > telling me that you don't use ANY services that have any presence at > all in the US? That's a pretty tall claim. This Internet thing is > about communications. Communications implies that both ends can, > well communicate. Cutting off one side or another arbitrarily will > result in reduced value to both sides. Fortunatly the Internet is global and doesn't entirely rely on the US. And it isn't 'cutting' off, current 6bone users have 3 long years the time to make sure they have RIR space connectivity. Seeing the history of computing, a lot can happen in 3 years. > For what it's worth, it seems to me that in the whole "let's schedule > the destruction of the 6bone" discussion, the commentary has been > dominated by people in Europe how have been thinking only of > themselves. Never heard of Asia now did you? That is the place where IPv6 is *it*. You might note that 6bone chairs and other coordinators are all US based. Not european. Also like you say yourself, there have been a lot of voices from the european 'side' because these people do voice themselves. Apparently the american 'side' doesn't have an interest in the 6bone or silently agree with it and want to move forward. You should realize that the 6bone is a *TEST* network for testing out new things. It's not for production networks, like providing paying clients with IPv6. ISP's tend to be production, at least I hope so for their customers. You are implying that you want a production connection, well then you won't need the 6bone for that now do you? > > There are many countries which > > don't have IPv6 at all. > > Then the date for destroying the nest of tunnels that is the 6bone > should not be scheduled until all of them have native IPv6 service, > too. I didn't write about them because I can't speak for them, I > can only speak for myself. 6bone == testing, you are talking about production space. Production space can be arranged in all countries on this planet through the RIR's (ARIN, APNIC & RIPE). Though LACNIC doesn't have a clear policy set out yet. But they are working on it. > > But the US certainly has > > *Grab stats* > > > 76 > > > Now say again that there is no IPv6 in the US? > > Okay. There are no IPv6 providers in the US. That I can find. I've > been talking about this for a month, now, and nobody on this list has > attempted to enlighten me so I conclude that nobody else knows of any > in the US, either. You certainly don't, or you would have named one. > I've looked, and I haven't been able to find any. You are looking for enduser IPv6 native connectivity. Now everybody can tell you that, except for asia, this is mostly not possible. Why? well for the exact reasons that you mention: No hardware support to the enduser. That's why there are transition methods available. > Note, please, that the fact that somebody has chosen to > purchase a block of addresses does not imply that they > have connectivity for sale or even that they intend to. Ofcourse, and even announcing it into the DFZ doesn't mean that they are using it either, let alone that somebody is watching over it. I am quite aware of that. > What I really need is 2B ISDN dial-up with fixed addresses. However, > even if someone is selling this service it doesn't matter because I > know of no equipment I can use for my end on that sort of connection. > I will admit that I haven't looked too hard for that. (What would be > the point?) Move to japan, they have it over there, but then again you won't find much ISDN over there as it's mostly cable (16mbit for 60$ US). Now wonder again why they win at the world CyberGames ;) > > Maybe you should start kicking around your ISP's a bit more? > > "Kicking around"? Just exactly WHAT kind of pull am I expected to > have with my ISP? As I've said before, threatening to leave won't > cut it. "Give me IPv6 connectivity or I'll disconnect completely from > the Internet" isn't a credible threat. I quote from http://ipv6.he.net 8<-------------------------------------- Hurricane Electric's support for IPv6 Hurricane Electric is currently running a production IPv6 network and offering business class commercial IPv6 services. Native IPv6 connectivity is available for both direct connection customers and colocation customers. Hurricane Electric also provides a free tunnel broker which allows users to experiment with IPv6 by tunneling over the existing IPv4 Internet. Hurricane Electric's tunnel broker is available for use by anybody. -------------------------------------->8 And I am european and not even related to he.net. In a way they are 'competition' for me, mind you, though I don't think of it that way. Note that HE has both RIR and 6bone space and so have many others. > > There are enough ways of getting IPv6 in europe so why > > should that be so different from the US? > > I don't know. My problem is that nobody who is pushing a rapid > destruction of the 6bone realizes that the conditions are different > in places that aren't right exactly where they are. > > If I were to be forced to guess, I'd guess that the real problem is > the amount of money invested in current infrastructure that would > have to be written off unless the equipment purchased by that money > can be somehow upgraded. From what I can see, the Lucent Max TNT > that I connect to cannot. That is exactly what the 'problem' is. Money. But why should that inhibit a pending closure, which is only going to happen in 3 years of a network (6bone) which is meant for testing? > > You should also note that 2006 is in 3 years. There > > will change a load of things before that date. > > There will? Maybe, maybe not. Your crystal ball isn't any > clearer than mine. I predict that the ILEC-based ISPs and > the cable companies will have the bulk of the US Internet > access business in 2006 and none of those companies has > shown the slightest interest in IPv6 or has any > intention of moving any faster than they possibly can on this issue. Then, if you are so determined to get *production* IPv6 at home, you should be talking to them why they are not doing it, when you got them in the boat it will all go faster. Also if we're taking it from that side I see a huge business opportunity in setting up a IPv6 provider in the US. :) > Of course, when you really get right down to it, what I really object > to is setting a calendar date on something that doesn't really have a > time element to it. What is necessary to make the dismantling of the > 6bone a good idea is about how widely IPv6 is deployed in production, > not about when some date rolls around. That's why setting a date, > even one far in the future, until the basic conditions for making the > 6bone irrelevant is not well considered. Apparently there are not many americans who complain about this. Also I think that most part of the _endusers_, including me and a load of others all around this globe, are still using tunneled connectivity. There are a happy view who have native connectivity ofcourse but I don't think it will be expressable in percentages. Why do you think we build a whitelabeled tunnelbroker system which provides RIR and 6bone on some POPs space to endusers. The target is to have a POP at an ISP so that it's clients can get IPv6 connectivity from their own ISP. Yes, tunneled. But without upgrading the intermediate hardware, which is usually quite a burden to replace, financially mostly. Let's take a looky at my home network: http://purgatory.unfix.org/network.gif See that nice thing called "Alcatel SpeedTouch", well it bridges my ethernet into the Cistron router. So purgatory simply has the MAC of the cistron router (195.62.92.1) in it's table. Effectively if that router supported IPv6 it could simply give me IPv6 by doing some ND and RA. Unfortunatly that box doesn't do IPv6, neither does the box that is connecting it to the rest of world which is behind it. The trick is that, quite close (~2ms max) is another router which plays POP and which gives me near-native IPv6: For example compare these two: jeroen@purgatory:~$ traceroute6 newszilla6.xs4all.nl traceroute to newszilla6.xs4all.nl (2001:888:0:4::119) from 3ffe:8114:2000:240:290:27ff:fe24:c19f, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets 1 gw-20.ams-02.nl.sixxs.net (3ffe:8114:1000::26) 20.02 ms 32.728 ms 19.626 ms 2 Amsterdam.core.ipv6.intouch.net (2001:6e0::2) 19.549 ms 19.775 ms 20.078 ms 3 ams-ix.tc2.xs4all.net (2001:7f8:1::a500:3265:2) 20.774 ms 19.838 ms 36.207 ms 4 0.ge-0-1-0.xr1.pbw.xs4all.net (2001:888:0:103::1) 22.904 ms 35.862 ms 20.324 ms 5 newszilla6.xs4all.nl (2001:888:0:4::119) 20.162 ms 20.637 ms 20.164 ms jeroen@purgatory:~$ traceroute newszilla.xs4all.nl traceroute to newszilla.xs4all.nl (194.109.133.20), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 gw-64-92.sms-1.ams-tel.cistron.net (195.64.92.1) 18 ms 17 ms 18 ms 2 ve10.rtr-1.ams-tel.cistron.net (62.216.31.1) 18 ms 18 ms 18 ms 3 ams-ix.tc2.xs4all.net (193.148.15.166) 19 ms 18 ms 18 ms 4 0.ge-0-1-0.xr1.pbw.xs4all.net (194.109.5.1) 24 ms 18 ms 18 ms 5 194.109.133.2 (194.109.133.2) 19 ms 19 ms 19 ms IPv4 path almost matches IPv6 path. As you see I also use 6bone space and that will end on 06/06/2006. I want it to end it before that too and get production space with support and all other benefits. Playtime is over. Though I do have to note that my IPv6 tunnel has been up for over about 2 years now so it's stable enough to be called production. By 2006 I hope the above mentioned boxes have been replaced by correct hardware which can handle IPv6. Otherwise I guess that my upstream ISP has installed their own POP and is nicely handing out 2001:9b8::/32 space to their clients. Then again who says that I am still using their service, or that my ISP is still in business, that they upgraded to ADSL2 etc? Or that we are simply internetting over WLAN? New technologies are bound to get IPv6 supported hardware. By the way there is something which is much worse about all this. Why doesn't for example Google, Altavista, CNN etc don't have IPv6 yet? Ai, but that just might roll into the chicken and egg problem again. I hope that clears up my viewpoint a bit. In short: 6bone = testing, it's now time for production. Greets, Jeroen From jsimmons@goblin.punk.net Thu Mar 20 01:45:42 2003 From: jsimmons@goblin.punk.net (Jeff Simmons) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 17:45:42 -0800 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <000901c2ee60$5d38a660$210d640a@unfix.org> References: <000901c2ee60$5d38a660$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <200303200145.h2K1jgp28679@goblin.punk.net> Pardon a lurker who's just here to learn about IPv6 from piping up, but ... On Wednesday 19 March 2003 01:41 pm, Jeroen Massar wrote: > There is nothing one can do against bad admins except hitting them > quite hard with a very big cluestick. It's the same for the fact > that you will still see Code Red and other worms flying around. > Some people just don't do their job correctly or good. You know, every time there's a problem on the internet, worms, virii, open mail relays, etc., someone trots out this tired old argument. Bad admin. Hit with cluestick. Reality, down in the trenches, is a little different. Most admins would LOVE to clean up their networks and servers, but can't. They're in firefighting mode from the minute they come into work, and priorities are assigned not with the health of the internet in mind, but with a concern for which of the higher-ups in the organization is the most pissed off at the moment. Or how much money it will make. Fix that open relay? And buy a new copy of the OS, which we stole in the first place? How much will that save us? Patch the DB server? Sorry, we promised that customer 99.999% uptime. Fix that routing table? Why, how's it affect our day to day operations? You want horror stories, contact me. I've got a LOT of them. I'm not here to jump in someone's face, or even to defend my chosen profession. But you guys have a chance to influence the next generation of internet protocols, and this kind of stuff isn't ever going to get fixed unless there are economic incentives to do so. The kind that will make management sit up and take notice. Not admins, management. They're the ones that call the shots on what gets fixed and what doesn't. What we need is a way to hit MANAGEMENT with that cluestick. And if it's built in at the protocol level, so much the better. Because if you think that it's just a problem of bad or lazy admins, you're going to be trotting that argument out again and again and again for many years to come. -- Jeff Simmons jsimmons@goblin.punk.net Simmons Consulting - Network Engineering, Administration, Security "In conclusion the main thing we did wrong ... was to worry about criminals being clever; we should rather have worried about our customers ... being stupid." Ross Anderson, "Security Engineering" From bob@thefinks.com Thu Mar 20 02:31:09 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:31:09 -0800 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <20030319233648.GA14599@nosc.ja.net> References: <000901c2ee60$5d38a660$210d640a@unfix.org> <20030319195751.GA23483@nosc.ja.net> <000901c2ee60$5d38a660$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030319182855.0219d910@mail.addr.com> Rob, I don't mind adding something to the draft, but what would you suggest that would do any good. Net operators are very unlikely to ever read the 6bone phaseout RFC in future years to find out what to do. Nonetheless, I'll add something if you can suggest what and where (and it seems reasonable). Thanks for caring to think about this. Bob === At 11:36 PM 3/19/2003 +0000, Rob Evans wrote: > > There is nothing one can do against bad admins except hitting them > > quite hard with a very big cluestick. > >Indeed, but documenting the possible issue would not be harmful, would >it? If for some reason a prefix was needed that is would not be >globally routable, this might then bubble straight to the top... > > > One solution to this, and some other problems could be solved > > by having a seperate 'blacklist BGP' which allows to block > > certain prefixes and other stuff from a central repository. > >I think one of the laws of the internet is that any routing-related >mailing list eventually discusses the possibilities of centrally >managed blackhole lists... > > > Currently most people, with clue, will also be filtering IPv6 > > routes. See http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html > > If an admin doesn't update those, then you already have that > > problem. > >Right, although with any luck, there will be several orders of >magnitude more IPv6 network operators by the time that 3FFE::/16 >comes around of reuse (if it ever does), and statistics suggest >that as well as many more clueful admins, there will be many more >clueless admins. > >Of course, we may well have a new addressing and routing paradigm >by that time too. :) > >Rob From jeroen@unfix.org Thu Mar 20 02:35:53 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 03:35:53 +0100 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <200303200145.h2K1jgp28679@goblin.punk.net> Message-ID: <002101c2ee89$6e9cb850$210d640a@unfix.org> Jeff Simmons [mailto:jsimmons@goblin.punk.net] wrote: > Pardon a lurker who's just here to learn about IPv6 from > piping up, but ... > > On Wednesday 19 March 2003 01:41 pm, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > There is nothing one can do against bad admins except hitting them > > quite hard with a very big cluestick. It's the same for the fact > > that you will still see Code Red and other worms flying around. > > Some people just don't do their job correctly or good. > > You know, every time there's a problem on the internet, > worms, virii, open mail relays, etc., someone trots out > this tired old argument. Bad admin. Hit with cluestick. > > Reality, down in the trenches, is a little different. Most > admins would LOVE to clean up their networks and servers, > but can't. They're in firefighting mode from the minute > they come into work, and priorities are assigned not with > the health of the internet in mind, but with a concern for > which of the higher-ups in the organization is the most > pissed off at the moment. Or how much money it will make. Ofcourse that is a problem in some organisations. But I think that then more has to do with the fact that you have more work on your hands than you can handle than the fact that you won't want to fix it. If the admin really loved his network he would clean it up starting from scratch if needed. > Fix that open relay? And buy a new copy of the OS, which we > stole in the first place? Never let the BSA (or similar authorities) hear that ;) Someone remember what fines there where for such cases? What did cost so much many again? Let alone the time etc. > How much will that save us? > > Patch the DB server? Sorry, we promised that customer 99.999% uptime. Then firewall that DB server away. What costs more? An abuse department that needs to address complaints from all over the world or an > Fix that routing table? Why, how's it affect our day to day > operations? It will generate more money as your paying clients will have a more stable network. > You want horror stories, contact me. I've got a LOT of them. Campfires are great places to hear those. > I'm not here to jump in someone's face, or even to defend my chosen > profession. But you guys have a chance to influence the next > generation of internet protocols, and this kind of stuff > isn't ever going to get fixed unless there are economic > incentives to do so. > > The kind that will make management sit up and take notice. > Not admins, management. They're the ones > that call the shots on what gets fixed and what doesn't. IMHO management that can actually take decissions on how an admin has to divide his/her workload could apparently help out that admin in aiding his job better. As you said, they only look at the money. If they look at the money they should also realize that faults cost money. And avoiding certain faults, dos's from your network because it suddenly is swamped with drones caused by some virus which was announced on security and virii lists, does save one from more work: the cleanup. > What we need is a way to hit MANAGEMENT with that cluestick. > And if it's built in at the protocol level, so much the better. > Because if you think that it's just a problem of bad or lazy > admins, you're going to be trotting that argument out again > and again and again for many years to come. Well apparently the admin can't convince his management why it is important to update stuff. Apparently also that management doesn't care when they get a bad reputation which effectively will cost them money. Word of mouth (email/fora) is probably the worst form of advertisement a company can have. Then again management is probably too uptight with getting money on their own banks to afford an extra admin. Management.. uptight, let's leave it with that ;) But it does boil down to yet the primary thing in this world: money. No money for new hardware/upgrades -> no IPv6. So maybe we should first invent some new quick money to get it all rolling ? :) You should convince your management types that they need IPv6 as it provides more to the enduser Also that when they do it now that they are ahead of the competition and don't have to worry for it when that competition already has it and is getting the customers that you actually wanted. There are always a couple of ways to look at a story ;) Greets, Jeroen From michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us Thu Mar 20 02:46:23 2003 From: michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us (Michel Py) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:46:23 -0800 Subject: [6bone] RE: 6bone digest, Vol 1 #298 - 14 msgs Message-ID: <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F54CFE@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> I have a tunnel from HE (among other tunnels; they are the closest to my location so far) it's free and in the 2001 space. Although I was in favor of a longer sunset for the 6bone I voted yesterday with all my comrades on the 6/6/6 date (and BTW look at my email address). As I said on the mike the 6bone was intended to experiment, not to do production. The request for a special pTLA I intend to send before the 1/1/4 deadline is for experimental purposes. For IPv6 access, time for production space has come. Michel. > <-------------------------------------- > Hurricane Electric's support for IPv6 > Hurricane Electric is currently running a > production IPv6 network and offering > business class commercial IPv6 services. > Native IPv6 connectivity is available for > both direct connection customers and > colocation customers. Hurricane Electric > also provides a free tunnel broker which > allows users to experiment with IPv6 by > tunneling over the existing IPv4 Internet. > Hurricane Electric's tunnel broker is > available for use by anybody. > --------------------------------------> From matthew.ford@bt.com Thu Mar 20 04:47:22 2003 From: matthew.ford@bt.com (matthew.ford@bt.com) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:47:22 -0000 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF Message-ID: Hi Bob, What I had in mind when I made the comment at yesterday's meeting that Rob was referring to, was simply a note to request that IANA not re-allocate 3ffe until they *really* have to (i.e. there's nothing else left, or 3ffe is specifically useful for something). Mat. > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Fink [mailto:bob@thefinks.com] > Sent: 19 March 2003 18:31 > To: Rob Evans > Cc: '6BONE List' > Subject: Re: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF > > > Rob, > > I don't mind adding something to the draft, but what would > you suggest that > would do any good. > > Net operators are very unlikely to ever read the 6bone > phaseout RFC in > future years to find out what to do. > > Nonetheless, I'll add something if you can suggest what and > where (and it > seems reasonable). > > > Thanks for caring to think about this. > > Bob > > === > At 11:36 PM 3/19/2003 +0000, Rob Evans wrote: > > > There is nothing one can do against bad admins except hitting them > > > quite hard with a very big cluestick. > > > >Indeed, but documenting the possible issue would not be > harmful, would > >it? If for some reason a prefix was needed that is would not be > >globally routable, this might then bubble straight to the top... > > > > > One solution to this, and some other problems could be solved > > > by having a seperate 'blacklist BGP' which allows to block > > > certain prefixes and other stuff from a central repository. > > > >I think one of the laws of the internet is that any routing-related > >mailing list eventually discusses the possibilities of centrally > >managed blackhole lists... > > > > > Currently most people, with clue, will also be filtering IPv6 > > > routes. See http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html > > > If an admin doesn't update those, then you already have that > > > problem. > > > >Right, although with any luck, there will be several orders of > >magnitude more IPv6 network operators by the time that 3FFE::/16 > >comes around of reuse (if it ever does), and statistics suggest > >that as well as many more clueful admins, there will be many more > >clueless admins. > > > >Of course, we may well have a new addressing and routing paradigm > >by that time too. :) > > > >Rob > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From rhe@nosc.ja.net Thu Mar 20 04:52:32 2003 From: rhe@nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 04:52:32 +0000 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20030320045232.GD9662@nosc.ja.net> > What I had in mind when I made the comment at yesterday's meeting that Rob > was referring to, was simply a note to request that IANA not re-allocate > 3ffe until they *really* have to (i.e. there's nothing else left, or 3ffe is > specifically useful for something). In the tradition of "send text," I was only thinking of something like the following: When the 6bone address space is reclaimed and returned to the IANA, it is expected that many network operators will filter it on their borders to ensure it is not misused. There is experience from the IPv4 world that such filters may not be removed promptly should this address space be reallocated, and it is recommended that the IANA bears this in mind before reallocating it in a manner that would require it to be routed globally within the current internet architecture. Is that contentious/disagreeable? "[...] within the current internet architecture" may not be needed. Cheers, Rob From matthew.ford@bt.com Thu Mar 20 05:24:46 2003 From: matthew.ford@bt.com (matthew.ford@bt.com) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 05:24:46 -0000 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF Message-ID: > In the tradition of "send text," I was only thinking of something like > the following: > > When the 6bone address space is reclaimed and returned to > the IANA, > it is expected that many network operators will filter it on their > borders to ensure it is not misused. > > There is experience from the IPv4 world that such filters > may not be > removed promptly should this address space be > reallocated, and it is > recommended that the IANA bears this in mind before reallocating > it in a manner that would require it to be routed globally within > the current internet architecture. > > Is that contentious/disagreeable? I'd prefer to see the second para read: 'There is experience from the IPv4 world that suggests such filters may not be removed promptly should this address space be reallocated. It is therefore recommended that the IANA not re-allocate the 6bone address space until such time as there is deemed to be no alternative to such re-allocation.' Mat. From bob@thefinks.com Thu Mar 20 06:57:12 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 22:57:12 -0800 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030319225539.022fcfc8@mail.addr.com> Mat, At 04:47 AM 3/20/2003 +0000, matthew.ford@bt.com wrote: >Hi Bob, > >What I had in mind when I made the comment at yesterday's meeting that Rob >was referring to, was simply a note to request that IANA not re-allocate >3ffe until they *really* have to (i.e. there's nothing else left, or 3ffe is >specifically useful for something). Understand. I'll think on it. Thanks, Bob From todd@fries.net Thu Mar 20 12:55:27 2003 From: todd@fries.net (Todd T. Fries) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:55:27 -0600 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <20030319204548.GA16778@brokersys.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030318185641.01ed49e8@mail.addr.com> <20030319204548.GA16778@brokersys.com> Message-ID: <20030320125527.GB27531@fries.net> If everyone reacted the way I did when I first heard, the end of the 6bone could be the most benificial thing to promote IPv6 that has happened yet. Initially, I grumbled about my ISP and its upstream not providing IPv6 natively, and I've been asking for two years. I placed a phone call to my isp to update some contact info, and asked a few questions one of which was about IPv6, and the next thing I know they are using me as a consultant and planning on beginning IPv6 enabling with a machine upgrade I'll be assisting with. One more isp in the US heading towards v6, and the draft wasn't even out yet ;-) -- Todd Fries .. todd@fries.net Free Daemon Consulting, LLC Land: 405-748-4596 http://FreeDaemonConsulting.fries.net Mobile: 405-203-6124 "..in support of free software solutions." Key fingerprint: 37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A Key: http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt (last updated 2003/03/13 07:14:10) Penned by Jonathan Guthrie on Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 02:45:49PM -0600, we have: | On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: | | > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong consensus reached | > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone turn off date | > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). | | I think it's insane to set a date for the end of the 6bone when there is | no replacement for it in the USA. | -- | Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) | Sto pro veritate | _______________________________________________ | 6bone mailing list | 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From todd@fries.net Thu Mar 20 12:58:36 2003 From: todd@fries.net (Todd T. Fries) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 06:58:36 -0600 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <20030319220732.GA2067@brokersys.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030318185641.01ed49e8@mail.addr.com> <20030319204548.GA16778@brokersys.com> <13e401c2ee12$9b5cd6d0$da4f8182@consulintel.es> <20030319220732.GA2067@brokersys.com> Message-ID: <20030320125836.GC27531@fries.net> As has been pointed out to me, v6 tunnels are available to production address space. The only thing we are really talking about is 'where do you get your IPv6 addresses from'. I've been using the 6bone for production for nearly two years now at my apartment. I do not mind a bit moving to production address space. -- Todd Fries .. todd@fries.net Free Daemon Consulting, LLC Land: 405-748-4596 http://FreeDaemonConsulting.fries.net Mobile: 405-203-6124 "..in support of free software solutions." Key fingerprint: 37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A Key: http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt (last updated 2003/03/13 07:14:10) Penned by Jonathan Guthrie on Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 04:07:32PM -0600, we have: | On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 01:25:12PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: | > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Bob Fink wrote: | | > > > The 6bone phaseout proposal was discussed with a strong consensus reached | > > > on a pTLA allocation cutoff date of Jan 1, 2004 and a 6bone turn off date | > > > of June 6, 2006 (6/6/6). | | > > I think it's insane to set a date for the end of the 6bone when there is | > > no replacement for it in the USA. | | > You will discover soon that this will change in the next few months ... | | I doubt it, but if so then why not wait until then to set the date? If, | as everyone seems to think, that will happen before I finish typing this | message, then you can still schedule it to be next January and look | like geniuses. If, as I think, that there still will be no way for my | network to get native IPv6 on January 1 2004, then I'll have to have no | IPv6 access. The jury is still out on whether that hurts you more than | it does me. | -- | Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) | Sto pro veritate | _______________________________________________ | 6bone mailing list | 6bone@mailman.isi.edu | http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Thu Mar 20 14:07:40 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 22:07:40 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Australia connection Message-ID: For those in AU who are interested I did manage to contact Geoff Huston at Telstra and has put me in contact with one of his IPv6 team who is sorting out connecting me up to them. Regards, Gav... --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 17/03/2003 From jeroen@unfix.org Thu Mar 20 16:36:38 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:36:38 +0100 Subject: [6bone] Australia connection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c2eefe$e2e77a40$210d640a@unfix.org> Gav wrote: > For those in AU who are interested I did manage to contact > Geoff Huston at Telstra and has put me in contact with > one of his IPv6 team who is sorting out connecting me up to them. Cool, but if at all possible could you share the information to the list, a URL at telstra for example would be great for pointing people to it when they come here. Apparently it will make a lot of people in the australian region quite happy. Greets, Jeroen From jeroen@unfix.org Thu Mar 20 16:55:25 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:55:25 +0100 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <20030320125836.GC27531@fries.net> Message-ID: <001901c2ef01$81b7b020$210d640a@unfix.org> Todd T. Fries wrote: > As has been pointed out to me, v6 tunnels are available to > production address space. The only thing we are really > talking about is 'where do you get your IPv6 addresses from'. > I've been using the 6bone for production for nearly two > years now at my apartment. I do not mind a bit moving to > production Which is indeed another good point for 'ending' the 6bone: 'Playtime' (read: experimentation) is over and ISP's will consider that it's now really ready for production. And this has been proven by the 6bone. Albeit in that respect I think one can really consider the 6bone a great success. Many problems where found and solved and a lot of operational experience has been gained. And there are still 3 years left to gain more of that ;) Greets, Jeroen From bob@thefinks.com Thu Mar 20 17:40:21 2003 From: bob@thefinks.com (Bob Fink) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:40:21 -0800 Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <20030320045232.GD9662@nosc.ja.net> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030320093749.0236f270@mail.addr.com> Rob, At 04:52 AM 3/20/2003 +0000, Rob Evans wrote: > > What I had in mind when I made the comment at yesterday's meeting that Rob > > was referring to, was simply a note to request that IANA not re-allocate > > 3ffe until they *really* have to (i.e. there's nothing else left, or > 3ffe is > > specifically useful for something). > >In the tradition of "send text," I was only thinking of something like >the following: > > When the 6bone address space is reclaimed and returned to the IANA, > it is expected that many network operators will filter it on their > borders to ensure it is not misused. > > There is experience from the IPv4 world that such filters may not be > removed promptly should this address space be reallocated, and it is > recommended that the IANA bears this in mind before reallocating > it in a manner that would require it to be routed globally within > the current internet architecture. > >Is that contentious/disagreeable? "[...] within the current internet >architecture" may not be needed. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll think on it. Bob From dan@reeder.name Fri Mar 21 08:43:01 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:43:01 +1000 Subject: [6bone] Australia connection References: <000801c2eefe$e2e77a40$210d640a@unfix.org> Message-ID: <002c01c2ef85$e7327e10$0200a8c0@elf> >Apparently it > will make a lot of people in the australian region quite happy here here! dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeroen Massar" To: "'Gav'" ; <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 2:36 AM Subject: RE: [6bone] Australia connection > Gav wrote: > > > For those in AU who are interested I did manage to contact > > Geoff Huston at Telstra and has put me in contact with > > one of his IPv6 team who is sorting out connecting me up to them. > > Cool, but if at all possible could you share the information > to the list, a URL at telstra for example would be great for > pointing people to it when they come here. Apparently it > will make a lot of people in the australian region quite happy. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Fri Mar 21 10:25:53 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 18:25:53 +0800 Subject: [6bone] Australia connection References: <000801c2eefe$e2e77a40$210d640a@unfix.org> <002c01c2ef85$e7327e10$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: Hi Guys, Yes I was waiting for confirmation from Telstra before releasing any details. The guy to speak to is Stephan Millet from Telstra Internet Networking Development Below is a copy of the email he has sent me, hopefully he will include the 6bone list when releasing more details but I will forward a copy of any more info I receive. Michael , Telstra as a 6Bone provider :0) Hope this helps:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Gav, Thanks for your inquiry. I am just putting the final touches on our IPv6 web pages etc which will provide all the info you require including application forms, I will release the URL to yourself and the General AU community soon (early next week all going well) Could you also please email me using my IPv6 role address as I run some pretty aggresive spam filters and wouldn't want to miss any emails from the general AU IPv6 community. email me using : ipv6-trial@telstra.net Speak to you soon Cheers -- Stephan Millet Telstra Internet Networking Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ PS- there was no doubt that I was going to share this information, why would I mention it in the first place otherwise :0) I know a fair few in AU who need this including Dan etc and was the main reason for my pushing this, I have no idea however whether this was going to be released this early (!) anyway but hope it helps. Gav.... --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 17/03/2003 From bmanning@ISI.EDU Sat Mar 22 11:12:49 2003 From: bmanning@ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 03:12:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF In-Reply-To: <20030319220732.GA2067@brokersys.com> from Jonathan Guthrie at "Mar 19, 3 04:07:32 pm" Message-ID: <200303221112.h2MBCns14453@boreas.isi.edu> % Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) It may be prudent to reflect on confusing mail here. "Shutting down the 6bone" is a misnomer. Perhaps more correctly put, "no more delegations in 3ffe::/16" coupled with a recommendation for ISP types to consider filtering 3ffe:: on their edges. If you are using 3ffe space now, talk to whomever delegated you that space and they should be able to give you 2001:: equivalents. Tunnels will still work and be used extensively. Their might be a few more native IPv6 transit providers. --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). From basit@basit.cc Sat Mar 22 14:47:56 2003 From: basit@basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 14:47:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] report of 6bone planning BOF Message-ID: Hmm so what advantage will we get in not using 3ffe::/16 space and still using tunnels, just with address change to 2001::/16 We could say that after this amount of time 3ffe::/16 space will be used for production also and your delegation will still work. and ISP be able to provide 3ffe:: space also as well as 2001:: ? -- basit On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Bill Manning wrote: > % Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) > > It may be prudent to reflect on confusing mail here. > "Shutting down the 6bone" is a misnomer. Perhaps more > correctly put, "no more delegations in 3ffe::/16" > coupled with a recommendation for ISP types to consider > filtering 3ffe:: on their edges. > > If you are using 3ffe space now, talk to whomever delegated > you that space and they should be able to give you 2001:: > equivalents. > > Tunnels will still work and be used extensively. Their might > be a few more native IPv6 transit providers. > > > --bill > Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and > certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From tbegin@tf1.fr Wed Mar 26 11:45:43 2003 From: tbegin@tf1.fr (BEGIN, Thomas) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:45:43 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Message-ID: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCAA7@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> Hello, I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. - Thomas From anil.bhaskar@wipro.com Wed Mar 26 13:33:58 2003 From: anil.bhaskar@wipro.com (Anil Bhaskarwar) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:03:58 +0530 Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Message-ID: <1E27FF611EBEFB4580387FCB5BEF00F355334D@webmail.wipro.com> Try ethereal at www.ethereal.com with winpcap2.3 onwards. Now WinPCap3.0 is also available at http://winpcap.polito.it/install/bin/WinPcap_3_0_a.exe Step to install Ethereal: Install first WinPCap and then install Ethereal. Enjoy. Thanks and Best Regards, Anil B. ************************************* Manager-Talent Transformation Mezzanine Floor, Floating Learning Centre, Wipro Tech. Electronics City-2 Board No: +91-80-8520408-Ext: 5438 Direct No: +91-80-8528778 VOIP: 808 5438 Mob: 9844003364 ************************************* -----Original Message----- From: BEGIN, Thomas [mailto:tbegin@tf1.fr] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:46 PM To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Hello, I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. - Thomas _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone **************************Disclaimer************************************ Information contained in this E-MAIL being proprietary to Wipro Limited is 'privileged' and 'confidential' and intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You are notified that any use, copying or dissemination of the information contained in the E-MAIL in any manner whatsoever is strictly prohibited. *************************************************************************** From danne@wiberg.nu Wed Mar 26 13:59:54 2003 From: danne@wiberg.nu (Daniel Wiberg) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:59:54 +0100 Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows In-Reply-To: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCAA7@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> References: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCAA7@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> Message-ID: <3E81B25A.4060708@wiberg.nu> Ethereal (www.ethereal.com) should work. //danne -- Daniel Wiberg www.wiberg.nu BEGIN, Thomas wrote: >Hello, >I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. >The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. >Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. > >- Thomas > > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > From basit@basit.cc Wed Mar 26 15:00:55 2003 From: basit@basit.cc (Abdul Basit) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:00:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows In-Reply-To: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCAA7@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> References: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCAA7@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> Message-ID: http://www.ethereal.com/introduction.html#features Its for windows also, btw what is windows server 2003 ? - basit On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, BEGIN, Thomas wrote: > Hello, > I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. > The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. > Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. > > - Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > From old_mc_donald@hotmail.com Wed Mar 26 15:21:48 2003 From: old_mc_donald@hotmail.com (Gav) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:21:48 +0800 Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows References: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCAA7@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> Message-ID: | | Its for windows also, btw what is windows server 2003 ? | Thats the beta version of Windows .NET Server. Gav... --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 25/03/2003 From jeroen@unfix.org Thu Mar 27 00:11:31 2003 From: jeroen@unfix.org (Jeroen Massar) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 01:11:31 +0100 Subject: [6bone] 3ffe:1f00::/24 ghost route disappeared Message-ID: <015201c2f3f5$6c364bf0$210d640a@unfix.org> I am pleased to announce that after a complete month the 3ffe:1f00::/24 ghost route disappeared. The first sighting was at : 2003-02-26 11:17 (*1) this continued until : 2003-03-26 20:22 (*2) I would like to thank the invisible powers that be for doing the cleanup. Notez bien that 3ffe:1f00::/24 doesn't have a route entry in the DFZ anymore and will show up as unavailable in 24 hours after this timemark in the TLA visiblity section (*3) Currently unavailable in 6bone space: 3ffe:0e00::/24 - IFB/GB 3ffe:2300::/24 - INFN-CNAF/IT 3ffe:400e::/32 - ECITY/IT 3ffe:4015::/32 - HP 3ffe:82e0::/28 - LDCOM/FR Which is a not a bad scoring (133/138) compared to APNIC (71/101), RIPE (121/177), ARIN (28/57). This does make 353 out of 473 TLA's reachable. Greets, Jeroen *1 = http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ghosts/?year=2003&month=02&day=26&time=11 1701 *2 = http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ghosts/?year=2003&month=03&day=26&time=20 2200 *3 = http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/tla/6bone/ From tbegin@tf1.fr Thu Mar 27 08:27:19 2003 From: tbegin@tf1.fr (BEGIN, Thomas) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:27:19 +0100 Subject: [6bone] RE: 6bone digest, Vol 1 #302 - 5 msgs Message-ID: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCAAD@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> I tried with it (Ethereal) But it looks like it doesn't catch IPv6's packets... However options in the software show that IPv should be taken on. Does anybody have tried to use it on a windows computer ? -Thomas -----Message d'origine----- De : 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu] Envoyé : mercredi 26 mars 2003 21:05 À : 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Objet : 6bone digest, Vol 1 #302 - 5 msgs Send 6bone mailing list submissions to 6bone@mailman.isi.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu You can reach the person managing the list at 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of 6bone digest..." Today's Topics: 1. ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (BEGIN, Thomas) 2. RE: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Anil Bhaskarwar) 3. Re: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Daniel Wiberg) 4. Re: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Abdul Basit) 5. Re: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Gav) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:45:43 +0100 From: "BEGIN, Thomas" To: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Hello, I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. - Thomas --__--__-- Message: 2 Subject: RE: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:03:58 +0530 From: "Anil Bhaskarwar" To: "BEGIN, Thomas" , <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Try ethereal at www.ethereal.com with winpcap2.3 onwards. Now WinPCap3.0 is also available at http://winpcap.polito.it/install/bin/WinPcap_3_0_a.exe Step to install Ethereal: Install first WinPCap and then install Ethereal. Enjoy. Thanks and Best Regards, Anil B. ************************************* Manager-Talent Transformation Mezzanine Floor, Floating Learning Centre, Wipro Tech. Electronics City-2 Board No: +91-80-8520408-Ext: 5438 Direct No: +91-80-8528778 VOIP: 808 5438 Mob: 9844003364 ************************************* -----Original Message----- From: BEGIN, Thomas [mailto:tbegin@tf1.fr] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:46 PM To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Hello, I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. - Thomas _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone **************************Disclaimer************************************ Information contained in this E-MAIL being proprietary to Wipro Limited is 'privileged' and 'confidential' and intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You are notified that any use, copying or dissemination of the information contained in the E-MAIL in any manner whatsoever is strictly prohibited. *************************************************************************** --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:59:54 +0100 From: Daniel Wiberg To: "BEGIN, Thomas" CC: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: Re: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Ethereal (www.ethereal.com) should work. //danne -- Daniel Wiberg www.wiberg.nu BEGIN, Thomas wrote: >Hello, >I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. >The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. >Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. > >- Thomas > > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:00:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Abdul Basit To: "BEGIN, Thomas" cc: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: Re: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows http://www.ethereal.com/introduction.html#features Its for windows also, btw what is windows server 2003 ? - basit On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, BEGIN, Thomas wrote: > Hello, > I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. > The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. > Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. > > - Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > --__--__-- Message: 5 From: "Gav" To: "Abdul Basit" Cc: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:21:48 +0800 | | Its for windows also, btw what is windows server 2003 ? | Thats the beta version of Windows .NET Server. Gav... --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 25/03/2003 --__--__-- _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone End of 6bone Digest From anil.bhaskar@wipro.com Thu Mar 27 13:31:59 2003 From: anil.bhaskar@wipro.com (Anil Bhaskarwar) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 19:01:59 +0530 Subject: [6bone] RE: 6bone digest, Vol 1 #302 - 5 msgs Message-ID: <1E27FF611EBEFB4580387FCB5BEF00F35DE39F@webmail.wipro.com> Dear Thomas, Please follow the procedure that I told yesterday, U may have to search the correct file (for windows) in the ethereal web site. I am using the same in .NET server and it is working fine for me. I downloaded from the site http://www.ethereal.com/distribution/win32/, there U will also get the ReadMe. Thanks and Best Regards, Anil B. ************************************* Manager-Talent Transformation Mezzanine Floor, Floating Learning Centre, Wipro Tech. Electronics City-2 ************************************* -----Original Message----- From: BEGIN, Thomas [mailto:tbegin@tf1.fr] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:27 PM To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: [6bone] RE: 6bone digest, Vol 1 #302 - 5 msgs I tried with it (Ethereal) But it looks like it doesn't catch IPv6's packets... However options in the software show that IPv should be taken on. Does anybody have tried to use it on a windows computer ? -Thomas -----Message d'origine----- De : 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu] Envoyé : mercredi 26 mars 2003 21:05 À : 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Objet : 6bone digest, Vol 1 #302 - 5 msgs Send 6bone mailing list submissions to 6bone@mailman.isi.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu You can reach the person managing the list at 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of 6bone digest..." Today's Topics: 1. ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (BEGIN, Thomas) 2. RE: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Anil Bhaskarwar) 3. Re: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Daniel Wiberg) 4. Re: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Abdul Basit) 5. Re: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Gav) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:45:43 +0100 From: "BEGIN, Thomas" To: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Hello, I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. - Thomas --__--__-- Message: 2 Subject: RE: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:03:58 +0530 From: "Anil Bhaskarwar" To: "BEGIN, Thomas" , <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Try ethereal at www.ethereal.com with winpcap2.3 onwards. Now WinPCap3.0 is also available at http://winpcap.polito.it/install/bin/WinPcap_3_0_a.exe Step to install Ethereal: Install first WinPCap and then install Ethereal. Enjoy. Thanks and Best Regards, Anil B. ************************************* Manager-Talent Transformation Mezzanine Floor, Floating Learning Centre, Wipro Tech. Electronics City-2 Board No: +91-80-8520408-Ext: 5438 Direct No: +91-80-8528778 VOIP: 808 5438 Mob: 9844003364 ************************************* -----Original Message----- From: BEGIN, Thomas [mailto:tbegin@tf1.fr] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:46 PM To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Hello, I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. - Thomas _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone **************************Disclaimer************************************ Information contained in this E-MAIL being proprietary to Wipro Limited is 'privileged' and 'confidential' and intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You are notified that any use, copying or dissemination of the information contained in the E-MAIL in any manner whatsoever is strictly prohibited. *************************************************************************** --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:59:54 +0100 From: Daniel Wiberg To: "BEGIN, Thomas" CC: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: Re: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Ethereal (www.ethereal.com) should work. //danne -- Daniel Wiberg www.wiberg.nu BEGIN, Thomas wrote: >Hello, >I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. >The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. >Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. > >- Thomas > > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:00:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Abdul Basit To: "BEGIN, Thomas" cc: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: Re: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows http://www.ethereal.com/introduction.html#features Its for windows also, btw what is windows server 2003 ? - basit On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, BEGIN, Thomas wrote: > Hello, > I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. > The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. > Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. > > - Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > --__--__-- Message: 5 From: "Gav" To: "Abdul Basit" Cc: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:21:48 +0800 | | Its for windows also, btw what is windows server 2003 ? | Thats the beta version of Windows .NET Server. Gav... --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 25/03/2003 --__--__-- _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone End of 6bone Digest _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone **************************Disclaimer************************************ Information contained in this E-MAIL being proprietary to Wipro Limited is 'privileged' and 'confidential' and intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You are notified that any use, copying or dissemination of the information contained in the E-MAIL in any manner whatsoever is strictly prohibited. *************************************************************************** From JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C2F5F6.38D04B50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, In case you still not noticed, the next major IPv6 Summit in Europe will = take place in Madrid (May 12-14th). This is the bigger European IPv6 = Forum event, and probably the bigger international one. You can't miss = it ! See http://www.ipv6-es.com; register now and take advantage of the early = registration offer. A lot of surprises will be discovered, including the Award Ceremony of = the IPv6 Appli-Contest 2003 (if you want to participate see = http://www.v6pc.jp/apc/en/index.html). Regards, Jordi Almost a hundred projects are demonstrating that IPv6 is working well. = The European Union=92s expectations regarding the new protocol, in order = to support its leadership as a future economic power, are becoming real. = The "Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit" is the major European event of the = year where you can learn of the latest developments in IPv6 standards = and deployment.=20 For the third consecutive year we invite you to participate in this key = event about Internet developments. You have a unique opportunity to = discover more about the evolution of the Internet to deliver new = applications and services. ***************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit 12-14 May 2003 - Register at: http://www.ipv6-es.com ------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C2F5F6.38D04B50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

In case you still not = noticed, the=20 next major IPv6 Summit in Europe will take place in Madrid (May = 12-14th). This=20 is the bigger European IPv6 Forum event, and probably the bigger = international=20 one. You can't miss it !

See http://www.ipv6-es.com; register now = and take=20 advantage of the early registration offer.
 
A lot of surprises will be discovered, = including=20 the Award Ceremony of the IPv6 Appli-Contest 2003 (if you want to = participate=20 see http://www.v6pc.jp/apc/en/i= ndex.html).

Regards,
Jordi


Almost a = hundred projects=20 are demonstrating that IPv6 is working well. The European Union=92s = expectations=20 regarding the new protocol, in order to support its leadership as a = future=20 economic power, are becoming real. The "Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit" = is the=20 major European event of the year where you can learn of the latest = developments=20 in IPv6 standards and deployment.

For the third consecutive year = we=20 invite you to participate in this key event about Internet developments. = You=20 have a unique opportunity to discover more about the evolution of the = Internet=20 to deliver new applications and services.

*****************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
12-14 May 2003 - Register at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com ------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C2F5F6.38D04B50-- From dan@reeder.name Sun Mar 30 06:29:19 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 16:29:19 +1000 Subject: [6bone] v6 on slashdot Message-ID: <000a01c2f685$b7b57140$0200a8c0@elf> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C2F6D9.83D90810 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >From today's Slashdot.org.... ar32h writes "The 6bone is going to be phased out soon. This means all = of us who have IP addresses or subnets beginning with 3ffe from tunnel = brokers like Freenet6 are going to be sorry out of luck." According to = the linked phaseout plan, "It is anticipated that under this phaseout = plan the 6bone will cease to operate by July 1, 2006, with all 6bone = prefixes fully reclaimed by the IANA," but there are a number of = sub-deadlines along the way.=20 I don't know what to make of this... I can't help but feel that, without = further public education (eg incite riots outside rir offices), the = public non-nerdy perception of the whole IPv6 scene and technology is = (was) nothing but a '.com gimmick'. dan ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C2F6D9.83D90810 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From today's = Slashdot.org....
ar32h writes "The 6bone is going to be phased=20 out soon. This means all of us who have IP addresses or subnets = beginning=20 with 3ffe from tunnel brokers like Freenet6 are going to be sorry out = of=20 luck." According to the linked phaseout plan, "It is anticipated = that under=20 this phaseout plan the 6bone will cease to operate by July 1, 2006, with = all=20 6bone prefixes fully reclaimed by the IANA," but there are a number of=20 sub-deadlines along the way.
 
I don't know what to make of this... I = can't help=20 but feel that, without further public education (eg incite riots=20 outside rir offices), the public non-nerdy perception of the whole = IPv6=20 scene and technology is (was) nothing but a '.com gimmick'.
 
dan
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C2F6D9.83D90810-- From cfaber@fpsn.net Mon Mar 31 01:03:41 2003 From: cfaber@fpsn.net (Colin Faber) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:03:41 -0700 Subject: [6bone] v6 on slashdot References: <000a01c2f685$b7b57140$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: <3E8793ED.BDE1A418@fpsn.net> Heh, Clearly these people are more on top of these than the 6bone group. I guess I should stop reading the 6bone list and pay more attention to slashdon't for all my IPv6 6bone related information from now on :-) > Dan Reeder wrote: > > From today's Slashdot.org.... > ar32h writes "The 6bone is going to be phased out soon. This means all > of us who have IP addresses or subnets beginning with 3ffe from tunnel > brokers like Freenet6 are going to be sorry out of luck." According to > the linked phaseout plan, "It is anticipated that under this phaseout > plan the 6bone will cease to operate by July 1, 2006, with all 6bone > prefixes fully reclaimed by the IANA," but there are a number of > sub-deadlines along the way. > > I don't know what to make of this... I can't help but feel that, > without further public education (eg incite riots outside rir > offices), the public non-nerdy perception of the whole IPv6 scene and > technology is (was) nothing but a '.com gimmick'. > > dan > > -- Colin Faber (303) 859-1491 fpsn.net, Inc. * Black holes are where God divided by zero. * From dan@reeder.name Mon Mar 31 03:07:00 2003 From: dan@reeder.name (Dan Reeder) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:07:00 +1000 Subject: [6bone] v6 on slashdot References: <000a01c2f685$b7b57140$0200a8c0@elf> <3E8793ED.BDE1A418@fpsn.net> Message-ID: <006701c2f732$a0ce3810$0200a8c0@elf> But they more accurately represent the internet community Colin. Sure, WE know that the phase out of the 6bone would be infact quite beneficial (atleast in theory) to the ipv6 movement. But they dont. They can (and are) very easily see it as the demise of IPv6 as a viable technology. The same thing happened when microsoft decided not to offer their java vm anymore... folks thought that java was doomed. dan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Faber" To: "Dan Reeder" Cc: <6bone@ISI.EDU> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [6bone] v6 on slashdot > > Heh, Clearly these people are more on top of these than the 6bone > group. I guess I should stop reading the 6bone list and pay more > attention to slashdon't for all my IPv6 6bone related information from > now on :-) > > > > > Dan Reeder wrote: > > > > From today's Slashdot.org.... > > ar32h writes "The 6bone is going to be phased out soon. This means all > > of us who have IP addresses or subnets beginning with 3ffe from tunnel > > brokers like Freenet6 are going to be sorry out of luck." According to > > the linked phaseout plan, "It is anticipated that under this phaseout > > plan the 6bone will cease to operate by July 1, 2006, with all 6bone > > prefixes fully reclaimed by the IANA," but there are a number of > > sub-deadlines along the way. > > > > I don't know what to make of this... I can't help but feel that, > > without further public education (eg incite riots outside rir > > offices), the public non-nerdy perception of the whole IPv6 scene and > > technology is (was) nothing but a '.com gimmick'. > > > > dan > > > > > > -- > Colin Faber > (303) 859-1491 > fpsn.net, Inc. > * Black holes are where God divided by zero. * > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone From pasky@xs26.net Mon Mar 31 12:08:12 2003 From: pasky@xs26.net (Petr Baudis) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:08:12 +0200 Subject: [6bone] v6 on slashdot In-Reply-To: <006701c2f732$a0ce3810$0200a8c0@elf> References: <000a01c2f685$b7b57140$0200a8c0@elf> <3E8793ED.BDE1A418@fpsn.net> <006701c2f732$a0ce3810$0200a8c0@elf> Message-ID: <20030331120812.GV14890@pasky.ji.cz> Dear diary, on Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 05:07:00AM CEST, I got a letter, where Dan Reeder told me, that... > But they more accurately represent the internet community Colin. > Sure, WE know that the phase out of the 6bone would be infact quite > beneficial (atleast in theory) to the ipv6 movement. But they dont. They can > (and are) very easily see it as the demise of IPv6 as a viable technology. > The same thing happened when microsoft decided not to offer their java vm > anymore... folks thought that java was doomed. Judging from the comments, there seems to be clueful enough people who are modded up sufficiently enough to educate others ;-). -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis . The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple. -- Oscar Wilde . Stuff: http://pasky.ji.cz/ From tbegin@tf1.fr Mon Mar 31 14:24:07 2003 From: tbegin@tf1.fr (BEGIN, Thomas) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:24:07 +0200 Subject: [6bone] RE: 6bone digest, Vol 1 #302 - 5 msgs Message-ID: <745A3632968F53438280A8320C535AD20CCAB7@MSGEXS21.tf1.groupetf1.fr> I've followed the instructions you gave to me and then I can catch IPv6 packets on my computer. I thank you for your help. Bye -Thomas -----Message d'origine----- De : Anil Bhaskarwar [mailto:anil.bhaskar@wipro.com] Envoyé : jeudi 27 mars 2003 14:32 À : BEGIN, Thomas; 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Objet : RE: [6bone] RE: 6bone digest, Vol 1 #302 - 5 msgs Dear Thomas, Please follow the procedure that I told yesterday, U may have to search the correct file (for windows) in the ethereal web site. I am using the same in .NET server and it is working fine for me. I downloaded from the site http://www.ethereal.com/distribution/win32/, there U will also get the ReadMe. Thanks and Best Regards, Anil B. ************************************* Manager-Talent Transformation Mezzanine Floor, Floating Learning Centre, Wipro Tech. Electronics City-2 ************************************* -----Original Message----- From: BEGIN, Thomas [mailto:tbegin@tf1.fr] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:27 PM To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: [6bone] RE: 6bone digest, Vol 1 #302 - 5 msgs I tried with it (Ethereal) But it looks like it doesn't catch IPv6's packets... However options in the software show that IPv should be taken on. Does anybody have tried to use it on a windows computer ? -Thomas -----Message d'origine----- De : 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu [mailto:6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu] Envoyé : mercredi 26 mars 2003 21:05 À : 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Objet : 6bone digest, Vol 1 #302 - 5 msgs Send 6bone mailing list submissions to 6bone@mailman.isi.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 6bone-request@mailman.isi.edu You can reach the person managing the list at 6bone-admin@mailman.isi.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of 6bone digest..." Today's Topics: 1. ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (BEGIN, Thomas) 2. RE: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Anil Bhaskarwar) 3. Re: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Daniel Wiberg) 4. Re: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Abdul Basit) 5. Re: ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows (Gav) --__--__-- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:45:43 +0100 From: "BEGIN, Thomas" To: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Hello, I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. - Thomas --__--__-- Message: 2 Subject: RE: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 19:03:58 +0530 From: "Anil Bhaskarwar" To: "BEGIN, Thomas" , <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Try ethereal at www.ethereal.com with winpcap2.3 onwards. Now WinPCap3.0 is also available at http://winpcap.polito.it/install/bin/WinPcap_3_0_a.exe Step to install Ethereal: Install first WinPCap and then install Ethereal. Enjoy. Thanks and Best Regards, Anil B. ************************************* Manager-Talent Transformation Mezzanine Floor, Floating Learning Centre, Wipro Tech. Electronics City-2 Board No: +91-80-8520408-Ext: 5438 Direct No: +91-80-8528778 VOIP: 808 5438 Mob: 9844003364 ************************************* -----Original Message----- From: BEGIN, Thomas [mailto:tbegin@tf1.fr] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:46 PM To: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Hello, I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. - Thomas _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone **************************Disclaimer************************************ Information contained in this E-MAIL being proprietary to Wipro Limited is 'privileged' and 'confidential' and intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You are notified that any use, copying or dissemination of the information contained in the E-MAIL in any manner whatsoever is strictly prohibited. *************************************************************************** --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:59:54 +0100 From: Daniel Wiberg To: "BEGIN, Thomas" CC: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: Re: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Ethereal (www.ethereal.com) should work. //danne -- Daniel Wiberg www.wiberg.nu BEGIN, Thomas wrote: >Hello, >I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. >The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. >Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. > >- Thomas > > >_______________________________________________ >6bone mailing list >6bone@mailman.isi.edu >http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > > --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:00:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Abdul Basit To: "BEGIN, Thomas" cc: 6bone@mailman.isi.edu Subject: Re: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows http://www.ethereal.com/introduction.html#features Its for windows also, btw what is windows server 2003 ? - basit On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, BEGIN, Thomas wrote: > Hello, > I' m looking for a ipv6 traffic analyzer that woks on windows server 2003. > The default one doesn't exactly fit with my requirements. > Thanks for giving me some names or addresses. > > - Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > 6bone mailing list > 6bone@mailman.isi.edu > http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone > --__--__-- Message: 5 From: "Gav" To: "Abdul Basit" Cc: <6bone@mailman.isi.edu> Subject: Re: [6bone] ipv6 traffic analyzer for windows Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 23:21:48 +0800 | | Its for windows also, btw what is windows server 2003 ? | Thats the beta version of Windows .NET Server. Gav... --- Checked for Viruses (Viri) , Gav... Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 25/03/2003 --__--__-- _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone End of 6bone Digest _______________________________________________ 6bone mailing list 6bone@mailman.isi.edu http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone **************************Disclaimer************************************ Information contained in this E-MAIL being proprietary to Wipro Limited is 'privileged' and 'confidential' and intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You are notified that any use, copying or dissemination of the information contained in the E-MAIL in any manner whatsoever is strictly prohibited. *************************************************************************** From Christian Lazo" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C2F794.96321400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello i have problems with coneccion in Cisco 12.2(8)T and Zebra 0.90a interface ATM4/0/0.8 multipoint description --> ELAN IPv6.cl ipv6 address 3FFE:400F::2/64 ipv6 enable ipv6 mtu 4470 lane client ethernet IPv6.cl end The problems is dead the connection and be necesary reboot the cisco for = reconection. Iam not Understand?=BF __________________ Christian Lazo R. Instituto de Inform=E1tica Fac. Cs de la Ingenier=EDa=20 Universidad Austral de Chile ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C2F794.96321400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello i have problems with coneccion = in Cisco=20 12.2(8)T   and Zebra 0.90a
 
interface ATM4/0/0.8=20 multipoint
 description --> ELAN IPv6.cl
 ipv6 = address=20 3FFE:400F::2/64
 ipv6 enable
 ipv6 mtu = 4470
 lane client=20 ethernet IPv6.cl
end
 

The problems is dead the = connection and be=20 necesary reboot the cisco for reconection.
 
Iam not Understand?=BF

 
 
 
 
__________________
Christian Lazo=20 R.
Instituto de Inform=E1tica
Fac. Cs de la Ingenier=EDa =
Universidad=20 Austral de Chile
------=_NextPart_000_006C_01C2F794.96321400--